A dramatic moment from the ILT20 final has now landed Pakistan fast bowler Naseem Shah in trouble with the International Cricket Council (ICC). The 22-year-old left-arm pacer has been fined for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct after a heated on-field exchange in Dubai.

Naseem Shah Fined by ICC for Code of Conduct Breach After ILT20 Final Clash

Babar Azam’s Pakistan teammate Naseem Shah, who was playing for Desert Vipers, has been sanctioned by the ICC following a heated on-field exchange with MI Emirates captain Kieron Pollard during the high-stakes ILT20 final on January 4 at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium in Dubai.

Naseem was fined 10 percent of his match fee for breaching Article 2.5 of the ICC Code of Conduct. The International League T20 (ILT20) confirmed the development on Monday (January 5).

Your daily dose of cricket!

Read Also: Harbhajan Singh under fire for chilling with Pakistan cricketers; ILT20 2025-26 video breaks internet

The Incident: What Sparked the Naseem Shah vs Kieron Pollard Clash?

The incident unfolded in the 11th over of the MI Emirates’ chase against the Desert Vipers in the ILT20 title decider at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium. After Pollard defended a ball back to Naseem, the Pakistani pacer picked it up with a smile.

This gesture did not go down well with the West Indies legend, with the moment leading to a heated verbal exchange between the two. Both Pollard and Naseem angrily marched toward each other, with the MI Emirates captain clearly fuming and the Pakistani pacer not ready to back down.

The situation escalated quickly, forcing the on-field umpires to step in. Desert Vipers batter Jason Roy also helped calm things down as both players were separated. Despite the intervention, the tension remained visible between the two, but Naseem had a final say in the summit clash.

HEATED MOMENT BETWEEN NASEEM SHAH & POLLARD IN ILT20 FINAL 🔥pic.twitter.com/dUuXWLkt5g

— junaiz (@dhillow_) January 4, 2026

The Official Verdict: Match Referee’s Ruling and Sanctions

The match referee, Simon Taufel, found Naseem in breach of Article 2.5** of the ICC Code of Conduct and handed him a fine. He escaped any suspension.

The ILT20 wrote on its official website: “Desert Vipers pacer Naseem Shah has been fined 10 percent of his match fee for a Level 1 breach of the ICC Code of Conduct following the DP World ILT20 Season 4 Final against MI Emirates at the Dubai International Stadium on 4 January.

Read Also: ICC in crisis as players of Pakistani descent struggle to get Indian visas for T20 WC 2026

Shah was found to have breached Article 2.5 of the ICC Code of Conduct, which relates to the use of language, actions, or gestures that could disparage or provoke an aggressive reaction from a batter following their dismissal. The sanction was imposed by Match Referee Simon Taufel.”

The Match Result: Vipers Triumph Amid Controversy

The drama did not derail the Desert Vipers’ campaign. Naseem Shah had the last laugh by dismissing Pollard for 28 later in the ILT20 2025-26 final on Sunday.

The Vipers thrashed MI Emirates by 46 runs to claim their maiden ILT20 title, thanks to an unbeaten half-century from captain Sam Curran and a brilliant spell (3/18) by Naseem in Dubai.

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Venezuela’s interim authorities would transfer between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, with the crude to be sold at market prices and the proceeds controlled by the US government.“I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.“This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” he added.Trump said he had directed Energy Secretary Chris Wright to “execute this plan, immediately,” adding that the oil “will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States.”CNN said it had reached out to the White House for further details. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the network that the oil had already been produced and stored in barrels, with most of it currently on vessels that would now be diverted to US Gulf Coast facilities for refining.While the volume announced appears substantial, the United States consumed just over 20 million barrels of oil per day over the past month. Analysts said the transfer may have a limited impact on fuel prices. In 2022, former President Joe Biden released around 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which lowered petrol prices by between 13 cents and 31 cents per gallon over four months, according to a Treasury Department analysis.Oil markets reacted modestly to Trump’s announcement, with US crude prices falling by about $1 a barrel, or just under 2%, to $56.At current prices, the sale of up to 50 million barrels could generate significant revenue. Venezuelan oil is trading at around $55 per barrel, meaning the total value could range between $1.65 billion and $2.75 billion if sold at market rates.Venezuela has accumulated large crude stockpiles since the United States imposed an oil embargo late last year. However, transferring such volumes to the US could significantly reduce the country’s reserves. The oil is expected to come from a mix of onshore storage and seized tankers previously transporting Venezuelan crude.The country has around 48 million barrels of onshore storage capacity, which was close to full, according to Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Price Futures Group. Industry estimates suggest seized tankers were carrying between 15 million and 22 million barrels of oil.The timeline for the transfer remains unclear. The senior administration official told CNN that the handover would likely be rapid because Venezuela’s crude is very heavy and cannot be stored for extended periods.

Sanjay Manjrekar, Virat Kohli

Former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar’s reaction to Virat Kohli’s Test retirement has brought back memories of a comment he made more than a decade ago, when Kohli’s place in the Indian Test side was under question during the 2011–12 tour of Australia.In Januray 2012, after India’s heavy loss in the second Test in Sydney, Manjrekar suggested giving Virat one more Test just to be sure “he does not belong here”. The remark came at a time when Kohli had managed modest scores in his first two Tests of the series and faced growing scrutiny over his spot in the XI.More than a decade later, Manjrekar is again speaking about Kohli, this time expressing disappointment over his decision to retire from Test cricket. The former batter said it was saddening to see Kohli walk away from the format while contemporaries Joe Root, Steve Smith and Kane Williamson continue to perform consistently in Test cricket.Posting on his official Instagram account, Manjrekar said the decision made him feel sad, particularly when he watches players like Root, Smith and Williamson continue to score runs and shape their Test careers.Manjrekar added that despite his struggles in recent years, Kohli still had the fitness and desire to attempt a return to form. He felt Kohli could have tried more options before deciding to retire from Test cricket.“I just feel sad that people like Joe Root and Steve Smith, Kane Williamson are really making a name for themselves in Test Cricket. It was okay, Virat Kohli just walked away from cricket, retired from all cricket. But that he’s chosen to play one day cricket actually disappoints me more, because this is a format which for a top-order batter, I’ve said before as well, is the easiest format,” he added.This is not the first time Manjrekar has publicly commented on Kohli’s career.Kohli had a difficult start to his Test career during India’s tour of the West Indies. He scored 4 and 15 on debut in Kingston, followed by a duck in Kingstown. Those performances did not secure his place immediately.He then made two half-centuries in the home series after being left out of the tour of England, which helped him earn selection for the Test series in Australia later that year.After two matches in Australia, Kohli’s place again came under scrutiny. He scored 11 and 0 in the Melbourne Test, followed by 23 and 9 in Sydney. With India losing the second Test by an innings and 68 runs, selection questions intensified before the third Test at the WACA.After the second Test, Manjrekar wrote on Twitter: “I would still drop VVS [Laxman] & get Rohit [Sharma] in for next Test. Makes long term sense. Give Virat one more test just to be sure he does not belong here.”Kohli was retained for the third Test. India were dismissed for under 200 in both innings, but Kohli top-scored in each. He made 44 in the first innings and 75 in the second before being caught behind off Peter Siddle.Rahul Dravid was the only other Indian batter to score more than 14 runs in the match, while seven players failed to reach double figures. After the Test, Kohli addressed the criticism in a press conference, saying: “I don’t know why people were even after me after the first game.”In the following Test, Kohli scored his maiden Test century. He again top-scored and batted with the tail to reach the hundred with one wicket remaining. That innings became the first of his 30 Test centuries, placing him fourth on India’s all-time list.That phase marked the beginning of Kohli’s long Test career, after he chose to ignore calls for his exclusion.

NEW DELHI: Nearly three decades after Supreme Court’s Vishaka judgment mandating a mechanism against the sexual harassment of women at workplaces, it remains unimplemented by many high courts, including Calcutta, Patna, Orissa, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Allahabad and Uttarakhand.Appearing for PIL petitioner Geeta Rani, senior advocate Sonia Mathur told SC that, significantly, district courts in Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, too, do not have any such mechanism. The bench sought status reports from registrar generals of the defaulting HCs, and bar associations and bar councils all over the country.

‘Lack of redressal mechanism undermines women’s rights’

The petitioner told the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the absence of a gender-sensitised complaint-handling structure in many courts, bar associations and tribunals results in serious constitutional violations and discourages women from fully participating in the justice delivery process.“In several courts across the country, there is either no established internal redressal mechanism, or the mechanism is not duly notified, accessible or functional. Information about complaint procedures, responsible authorities, or grievance redressal channels is often unavailable or opaque,” she said. “Sensitisation and awareness among court administration, judicial staff, security personnel and lawyers also remain inadequate. This systemic deficiency exposes women to an unsafe environment and undermines their constitutional guarantees,” the petitioner said.In the Vishaka judgment in 1997, Supreme Court had laid down mandatory guidelines requiring all institutions, including courts, to establish mechanisms for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at workplace, recognising women’s right to equality, dignity and a safe work environment under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In 2013, SC, in the Medha Kotwal Lele case, had reaffirmed and strengthened the Vishaka guidelines, and directed all institutions to ensure effective, independent and accessible complaint mechanisms to safeguard women’s rights at workplaces. In 2015, SC had constituted the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee for protection of female lawyers, employees, interns and litigants within court premises.The petitioner said, “The absence of similar mechanisms in HCs, district courts and tribunals results in unequal treatment of women lawyers across judicial Institutions and hence, violates Article 14. A constitutional standard available within SC must be replicated for every court of justice in the country.”

DEHRADUN: A fortnight after the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das — a 28-year-old Hindu garment factory worker who was beaten and burnt alive on accusations of blasphemy — in Bangladesh’s Mymensingh district, his family has now said that the real trigger was his promotion at work. Speaking to TOI from Bangladesh, they alleged that a few colleagues, unable to accept that a man of another faith, had been promoted over them, manufactured the charge after failing the same in-house exam that Dipu cleared to become ‘in-charge’.“They simply raised an objection citing his religion,” said Baburam Das, Dipu’s father-in-law. “They couldn’t accept the fact that they had to call him ‘Sir’ in the factory. On the day of the incident, they entered into a verbal altercation with him over religion. Then they accused him of blasphemy, beat him near the factory gate and handed him over to an incited mob waiting outside to kill him.”

Dipu had recently cleared the promotion exam, ahead of several others who took it, and had been elevated from supervisor to in-charge — a designation change that sparked resentment. His family insists the backlash was not about anything he had said or done but rather about what he had achieved, and who he was. “Those raising objections also sat the exam but didn’t pass,” said Baburam. “My son-in-law got the job on merit. They couldn’t tolerate it and ended up committing this inhumane, heinous act. Two families have been devastated.”Dipu’s brother, Apu Chandra Das, also confirmed the family’s version, saying he had heard similar accounts from his co-workers. “What we know is that he was falsely accused of blasphemy and murdered,” he said. “He was a calm, friendly person who respected all religions equally. It’s devastating that his colleagues, angry over a promotion, chose to take revenge in such a horrific way.”Apu filed a complaint on Dec 19, following which the local police and the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), Bangladesh’s elite counter-terror unit, launched an investigation. Around 20 people have been arrested so far, though the FIR named approximately 150 unidentified individuals as part of the mob. The RAB, in an official statement, said no post or act by Dipu indicating blasphemy had been found on social media — the original accusation made by the attackers.Dipu’s father, Robi Lal Das, told TOI that Bangladesh’s govt has extended some support. “We’re receiving Rs 25,000 a month and 5kg of dry ration,” he said. “They’ve also promised a govt job to Dipu’s wife. But now that our son is gone, all we want is justice. He was falsely accused. That is the only truth.”His daughter, now widowed, wears white. Their one-year-old child, Baburam said, keeps looking around for her father. “Her eyes still search for someone who will never return. How do we explain to her what happened? All her happiness has been snatched away. My daughter is left alone to raise a child in mourning,” he said. “I just hope justice is served so that no other Hindu family in this country has to go through what we have.”

Sri Lanka will go head-to-head against Pakistan in the first of the three-match T20I series. This article provides detailed information on SL vs PAK Live Streaming for the 1st T20I of the tour.

Sri Lanka would like to begin the year with a win over Pakistan, against whom they lost the last game in the T20I format of the game, which was a part of the tri-series.

The home side would want to start afresh under the leadership of Dasun Shanka, who returns as the captain of the side in this format for the series against Pakistan and England, followed by the T20 World Cup.

Your daily dose of cricket!

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the visitors would want to build on the good performances that they delivered in the year gone by and gain momentum for the T20 World Cup.

The Salman Ali Agha-led side would look to put on a strong performance with bat, ball, and in the field to take a 1-0 lead in the series.

SL vs PAK Free Live Streaming in India, Live Telecast- 1st T20I, Pakistan Tour of Sri Lanka 2026:

TV Rights In India

The rights to televise the SL vs PAK T20I series in India are with Sony Sports. The first SL vs PAK T20I will be broadcast on Sony Sports Ten 1, Sony Sports Ten 2, and Star Sports 5.

Live Streaming Platform in India:

The live stream of the SL vs PAK Test can be accessed through the Sony Liv app and website.

Fans can also buy a Vi or Jio SIM to watch the online streaming of the SL vs PAK T20I match.

When will the match take place?

The game will take place on January 7. It will start at 7:00 PM IST.

Where will the match be played?

The Sri Lanka vs Pakistan match will be played at the Rangiri Dambulla International Stadium in Dambulla.

How to watch the Live Telecast of the Sri Lanka vs Pakistan match on television?

The live telecast of the first SL vs PAK Test will be available on the Sony Sports Network.

How to live stream the match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan online on mobile?

Sony Liv will live-stream the first match of the SL vs PAK T20I series. Cricket lovers in this part of the world can watch the live streaming of the match on their mobiles, laptops, and connected TVs.

Conclusion

As far as the squads for both teams are concerned, the selectors have shown faith in the core that has been with the team in the last year or so and would back it to come good in the opening match of the series.

The first match of the series promises to offer a good battle between bat and ball as both teams have players who can turn the game in their team’s favour in no time, courtesy of a match-winning performance in their respective departments.

That is the reason why fans cannot afford to miss the game and can watch the action through live telecast and live streaming.

Agastya Nanda’s inaugural film ‘Ikkis’ has hit a rough patch at the box office, reportedly falling short of Rs 25 crore even after a week of release. The war drama, featuring the legendary Dharmendra in his swan song role, only managed to collect Rs THIS amount on day six. Read on.

Agastya Nanda‘s ‘Ikkis’ failed to impress the audience, and its box office collections are proof of the same. While both the makers and the audience had high hopes for the film, it ultimately did not meet their expectations. Even after six days since the release, the movie has not crossed the Rs 25 crore mark at the box office. Let’s take a look at how much it has earned on its sixth day.

‘Ikkis’ box office collection Day 6 (first Tuesday)

The war drama starring Amitabh Bachchan’s grandson, Agastya Nanda, opened to mixed reviews from the audience and the critics as well. According to the Sacnilk report, the film has earned Rs 1.5 crore at the box office on Day 6 since the release. With this, the total collection of the film stands at Rs 23 crore.

Day-wise collection

Day 1 [1st Thursday]: Rs 7 croreDay 2 [1st Friday]: Rs 3.5 croreDay 3 [1st Saturday]: Rs 4.65 croreDay 4 [1st Sunday]: Rs 5 croreDay 5 [1st Monday]: Rs 1.35 croreDay 6 [1st Tuesday]: Rs 1.50 croreTotal: Rs 23.00 crore

‘Ikkis’ vs ‘Tu Meri Main Tera Main Tera Tu Meri‘

The Kartik Aaryan and Ananya Panday starrer has witnessed the same fate as ‘Ikkis’ at the box office. The rom-com has been earning in lakhs in its second week. On day 13 (second Tuesday), the film earned Rs 25 lakh at the box office. The total collection of the film stands at Rs 32.5 crore.

‘Ikkis’ vs ‘Dhurandhar’

The Aditya Dhar directorial, ‘Dhurandhar’, has finally shown signs of slowing down towards the end of its fifth week. On day 33 since the release, the Ranveer Singh-led spy thriller raked in Rs 4.75 crore at the box office. The total score of the movie in India is Rs 781.75 crore.

More about ‘Ikkis’

Directed by Sriram Raghavan, ‘Ikkis’ is the last screen appearance of the late legendary actor Dharmendra. Apart from Agastya Nanda and Dharmendra, the film also stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Simar Bhatia, Sikander Kher, and Vivaan Shah. The movie was released in theaters on January 1, 2026.

Mustafizur Rahman (Photo by Kerry Marshall/Getty Images)

Former Bangladesh captain Mohammad Ashraful has said that Mustafizur Rahman remains unaffected by the circumstances surrounding his release from Kolkata Knight Riders in the Indian Premier League. The Bangladesh pacer was let go by KKR following a directive from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, issued amid heightened tensions between the two countries. Speaking in his role as assistant coach of Rangpur Riders in the ongoing Bangladesh Premier League, Ashraful revealed that Mustafizur has shown no signs of distraction and is fully committed to his current assignment.

“He is completely chill. He is not worried at all about all the off-field talk – whether it’s BCB, India, BPL or ICC,” Ashraful told reporters after Rangpur Riders’ match against Chattogram Royals. Ashraful, who also serves as Bangladesh’s batting coach, said the left-arm pacer’s focus is firmly on performing for Rangpur before turning his attention to whatever lies ahead. “Right now he is focused on playing for Rangpur Riders, and after this, whatever assignment comes next, he will focus on that. He is a person of a different level,” he said. Assessing Mustafizur’s performances in the BPL so far, Ashraful acknowledged a slow start but highlighted his impact in Rangpur’s recent win over Dhaka. “If you talk about Mustafizur in the first two matches, his performances were a bit below par, but especially the way we won the last match against Dhaka was an outstanding victory. And the way Mustafizur bowled those last two overs – I think he is a world champion for this format, that’s how important he is,” he added. In the aftermath of the BCCI’s decision, the Bangladesh Cricket Board held an emergency meeting on Sunday and later confirmed that it had formally approached the International Cricket Council. The BCB has requested that all of Bangladesh’s matches in the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup be moved to venues outside India, citing safety and security concerns. India and Sri Lanka are slated to co-host the tournament from February 7 to March 8, with games scheduled across several venues in both countries. Bangladesh’s stance has the potential to complicate the tournament calendar, as they are currently scheduled to face the West Indies on February 7, Italy on February 9, and England on February 14 at Eden Gardens in Kolkata, before playing Nepal on February 17 at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai.

NEW DELHI: A day after Supreme Court rejected the bail plea of activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam by holding that delay in trial and long incarceration cannot be the sole ground to grant relief, another bench of the court on Tuesday held that an accused has fundamental right to speedy trial and it is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

It said delay in trial is a valid ground to grant bail and granted relief to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham who has been in jail for the last 16 months in a money laundering case.“The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence,” said a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe. It said SC had in multiple cases invoked long incarceration to grant bail when the jail period ranged from 3-17 months.

If state can’t ensure speedy trial, don’t oppose bail plea: Supreme Court

Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment,” said the SC bench.Though Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, who have spent almost six years in jail, are being prosecuted for terror acts under UAPA, the bail provisions — under Section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act — are similar. Both say an accused cannot be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true and condition is imposed under the accused to demonstrate prima facie innocence.The court’s order granting bail to former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham is in contradiction to the order passed while rejecting the bail plea of the student activists but it is in conformity with orders passed by SC earlier, including in cases of former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and TN minister Senthil Balaji. It shows inconsistency in the approach of the apex court.Allowing the plea of Dham, the bench said gravity of offence is one of the factors which is to be considered while deciding bail but said that statutory restrictions (as provided under PMLA, UAPA) cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.“It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime,” it said.“The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-judge bench of this court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial,” the court added.The bench noted that there was no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future as there are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. “There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said.While allowing bail plea of UAPA accused K A Najeeb, alleged to be a member of banned PFI, Chief Justice Surya Kant, who was part of a three-judge bench and penned the judgment, had said Section 43D(5) of UAPA per se did not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights of accused.