In Match 23 of SA20 2025-26, the Paarl Royals host Durban’s Super Giants at Boland Park in a high-stakes encounter for playoff positioning. The Royals, currently fourth, seek to bounce back after a 21-run defeat to Pretoria Capitals. David Miller remains their batting mainstay with 161 runs, while Sikandar Raza, the tournament’s leading wicket-taker with 11 scalps continues to be a game-changer with his elite spin.

Durban’s Super Giants arrive with renewed momentum following a thrilling two-wicket win over table-toppers Sunrisers Eastern Cape. Although they sit fifth, a victory today could propel Aiden Markram’s side into the top four. Jos Buttler leads their scoring with 166 runs, and the spin duo of Noor Ahmad and Sunil Narine will look to exploit a Boland Park surface that historically grips as the game progresses. With the head-to-head record tied at 3–3, this clash promises a tactical battle between Paarl’s disciplined bowling and Durban’s explosive middle order.

PR vs DSG, SA20 2026: Match details

• Date and Time: January 13; 9:00 pm IST / 03:30 am GMT / 5:30 pm Local
• Venue: Boland Park, Paarl

PR vs DSG Head-to-Head Record in SA20

Matches played: 06 | Paarl Royals won: 03| Durban’s Super Giants won: 03 | No result/Tied: 00

Boland Park Pitch Report

Boland Park is known for its sluggish surface, often favouring spinners and bowlers who rely on variations rather than sheer pace. Scoring tends to become challenging through the middle overs, making a strong powerplay and smart strike rotation crucial. With hot weather expected in Paarl, the dry conditions are likely to bring the spinners even more into play as the game wears on.

Also WATCH: Matthew Breetzke plucks a screamer to dismiss Dewald Brevis in SA20 2026

Squads

Paarl Royals: Lhuan-dre Pretorius, Asa Tribe, David Miller (c), Sikandar Raza, Delano Potgieter, Rubin Hermann, Kyle Verreynne (wk), Bjorn Fortuin, Mujeeb Ur Rahman, Nqobani Mokoena, Ottneil Baartman, Vishen Halambage, Dan Lawrence, Hardus Viljoen, Gudakesh Motie, Okuhle Cele, Nqabayomzi Peter, Eshan Malinga, Thomas Rew, Keagan Lion Cachet

Durban’s Super Giants: Devon Conway, Kane Williamson, Jos Buttler, Aiden Markram (c), Heinrich Klaasen (wk), Evan Jones, David Wiese, Eathan Bosch, Simon Harmer, Kwena Maphaka, Noor Ahmad, Sunil Narine, Taijul Islam, Dayyaan Galiem, Daryn Dupavillon, Tony de Zorzi, Marques Ackerman, Gerald Coetzee, David Bedingham, Andile Simelane, Gysbert Wege

PR vs DSG, SA20 2026: Today’s Match Prediction

Case 1:

• Paarl Royals wins the toss and bats first
• Paarl Royals’ powerplay score: 50-60
• Paarl Royals’ total score: 170-180

Case 2:

• Durban’s Super Giants wins the toss and bats first
• Durban’s Super Giants’ powerplay score: 40-50
• Durban’s Super Giants’ total score: 160-170

Match result: Team batting first to win the contest.

Also WATCH: Dewald Brevis and Sherfane Rutherford unleash a flurry of sixes on MI Cape Town bowlers in SA20 2025-26

General Upendra Dwivedi (ANI photo)

NEW DELHI: Army chief General Upendra Dwivedi on Tuesday reflected on Operation Sindoor, describing the counterterror military action as “ongoing” and warning Pakistan, that any “future misadventure will be resolutely responded.”General Dwivedi issued a direct warning to Islamabad, saying, “At least 6 terror camps still active across the LoC & 2 across the International Border after Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. Will act, if any (nefarious) attempts are carried out.”Addressing the annual Army Day press conference, General Dwivedi said a “clear decision to respond decisively was taken at the highest level.” He added, “Operation Sindoor was conceptualised and executed with precision. Through 22 minutes of initiation on 7th May and an orchestration that lasted 88 hours up to 10th May, the operation reset strategic assumptions by striking deep, dismantling terror infrastructure, and puncturing the longstanding nuclear rhetoric. The Army successfully destroyed seven out of the nine targets and thereafter played a pivotal role in ensuring a calibrated response to Pak actions.”Upendra Dwivedi highlighted the heavy losses suffered by the Pakistan Army, saying that about 100 of their personnel were killed in firing along the LoC and IB during heightened military tensions.The Army chief stressed that the counterterror operation, launched in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack, remains “ongoing,” and reiterated the warning of a “resolute response” to any future misadventures. He also acknowledged the coordinated national effort behind the operation, saying, “I must acknowledge the proactive role of all stakeholders at the national level, including CAPFs, Intelligences, civic bodies, state administration and other ministries, whether it’s MHA, Railways and many more…”Also read: Project-75I; How India’s $8 billion submarine upgrade reshapes the Pakistan, China equationCalling the mission a benchmark in joint operations, General Dwivedi said, “Operation Sindoor was the best example of tri-service synergy under clear-cut political directive and full freedom to act or respond.”He also added that military responses in future will be a combined action and reflected on PM Modi’s vision, General Dwivedi said, “Now the battle of the future will not be won by a single arm or even a single service. It will be a national level enterprise. The Prime Minister captured this vision through the mantra of ‘Jai’ where jointness integrates our effort, Atmanirbharta empowers our capability and accelerated innovation drives ideas into action. So, based on the lessons drawn during Operation Sindoor and in line with the Indian Army‘s belief that change must come at the velocity of relevance. We prefix the verb acceleration to all our nouns, that is initiatives.”Commenting on the broader security situation in the North, the Army chief said, “The situation along the Northern Front remains stable, but needs constant vigil. Apex-level interactions, renewed contact, and confidence-building measures are contributing to the gradual normalisation of the situation that has also enabled grazing, hydrotherapy camps, and other activities along the Northern Borders.” On India-China border, he said “With our continued strategic orientation on this front, our deployment along the Line of Actual Control remains balanced and robust. Concurrently, capability development and infrastructure enhancement are progressing through a whole-of-government approach.”The Army chief also responded to and rejected China’s repeated claims on Jammu and Kashmir’s Shaksgam Valley, reiterating India’s position: “India considers the 1963 agreement between Pakistan and China on Shaksgam Valley.”In the intervening nights of May 6 and May 7, Indian armed forces carried out precision strikes under Operation Sindoor, destroying nine major terror hideouts in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and mainland Pakistan. The strikes targeted headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammad in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba in Muridke.Following the operation, India clarified that the strikes were aimed solely at terror infrastructure and not Pakistan’s state machinery. However, Islamabad attempted retaliatory missile and drone attacks, all of which were intercepted and neutralised by India’s air defence systems, preventing any loss of life or property.India then launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistan’s military installations, destroying key airbases, including Rahim Yar Khan and the Nur Khan airbase.

Stray dogs issue: Activists, citizens protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing the case on stray dogs, warning that states will likely pay a compensation for ‘not doing anything’ for every bite that leads to death or injury to either children or the elderly.The apex court also asked for accountability from those claiming to be dog feeders, telling them to continue their activity from their house. The hearing took place in front of three-judge special bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. AnjariaAccording to LiveLaw, Justice Nath said, “For every dog bite, death or injury caused to children or elderly, we are likely going to fix heavy compensation by state, for not doing anything. Also, liability and accountability on those who are saying we are feedings dogs. Do it, take them to your house. Why should dogs be littering around, biting, scaring people?”

The case so far

The SC had refused to examine allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers, reiterating that such complaints fall under law and order issues and that affected individuals can lodge FIRs. Hearing arguments in the stray dogs case, the apex court also declined to consider claims that derogatory remarks were being made against women in the course of the debate.The three-judge special bench observed that some of the submissions made before it were ‘far from reality’ and pointed to several videos showing stray dogs attacking children and elderly persons.The court was hearing a batch of pleas, including those filed by dog lovers, seeking modification of its earlier orders as well as petitions demanding strict enforcement of existing directions.The bench clarified that it had never ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the streets and that its directions were limited to the treatment of stray canines in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules. It also flagged widespread non-compliance by civic bodies, noting that people were dying not only due to dog bites but also because of road accidents caused by stray animals.Citing an “alarming rise” in dog bite incidents in institutional areas such as schools, hospitals and railway stations, the Supreme Court on November 7 directed that stray dogs be relocated to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination. It also ordered that dogs picked up should not be released back at the places from where they were removed.The court further directed authorities to ensure the removal of cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways.The Supreme Court is hearing the matter as a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year following media reports on stray dog attacks leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.

NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday formally launched the logo and official website for its Brics Presidency 2026, setting the tone for its upcoming chairmanship of the multilateral grouping. The launch took place in New Delhi, where external affairs minister S Jaishankar attended the event and outlined India’s priorities for the year ahead.The logo reflects Indian identity and the collective nature of BRICS. Its overall shape is inspired by the lotus, India’s national flower. At the centre of the design, the inner petals form two hands joined in a Namaste, a gesture commonly associated with greeting and respect. The five petals are coloured to represent the founding BRICS members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, highlighting unity among diverse nations.

Referring to the logo and the website, external affairs minister S Jaishankar said at the event that the theme underscored the need to strengthen capacities, promote innovation and ensure sustainable development for the benefit of all. He said the logo reflects unity and diversity among Brics members, while the Brics India website would serve as a common platform during India’s chairship, providing information on meetings, initiatives and outcomes, and enabling timely dissemination of information and greater engagement.The external affairs misniter said India’s Brics chairship would seek to “bring together the potential of Brics countries for greater global welfare”. He said India would assume the chair in 2026 at “an important moment in the grouping’s journey”, as Brics completes 20 years since its inception. Over the years, he said, Brics has “steadily evolved into a significant platform for cooperation among emerging markets and developing economies”, expanding its agenda and membership while remaining focused on people-centric development, dialogue and practical cooperation.Outlining the roadmap for India’s chairship, Jaishankar said the four broad priorities would be “resilience, innovation, cooperation and sustainability”. He said these priorities would “provide a coherent and balanced framework across the three foundational pillars of Brics, political and security, economic and financial, and cultural and people-to-people exchanges”.

Jeff Bezos often points out that long-term success comes from staying committed to an idea while remaining open to changing the approach.

It’s almost official that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have cut ties with California. The two Google Guys have reportedly said Bye to California; joining the billionaires who have left the state, shifting businesses and houses. Page is worth around $270 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. According to a report in Wall Street Journal, Larry Page has bought two massive Miami estates for a combined $173.4 million. The report quotes people familiar with the situation Google co-founder Sergey Brin is also said to be in discussions to purchase a Miami home, according to people familiar with the situation.Some analysts have termed Google founders’ move to leave California strikingly similar to Jeff Bezos’ relocation playbook. According to them, the timing, structure, and destination of Page’s escape from Silicon Valley make his Florida pivot look quite like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. But the big difference here is that Jeff Bezos did not leave California. Amazon founder left Seattle, the city where he started the online bookseller that grew into the global tech giant, Amazon.

When Jeff Bezos left Seattle

In 2024, Bezos announced on Instagram that he was leaving Seattle after nearly 30 years to move to Miami. He said that the move was to be closer to his parents and his rocket launches at Blue Origin. In his Instagram post, Bezos called Seattle his home since 1994. However, the timing, as some analysts pointed out, also suggested another reason: Taxes. In 2022 Washington state imposed a new, 7% capital gains tax on sales of stocks or bonds of more than $250,000. As Washington state does not have a personal income tax, so the new levy marked the first time that Bezos would face state taxes on his stock sales. As reported by CNBC, in 2022, when the Washington state’s Capital gains tax took effect, Bezos stopped selling. He didn’t sell any Amazon stock in 2022 or 2023, gifting only $200 million of shares at the end of that year.After his move to Miami, Bezos reportedly made up for lost time. Quoting an SEC filing, the report says that Bezos launched a pre-scheduled stock-selling plan to unload 50 million shares before January 31, 2025. And since Florida has no state income tax or a tax on capital gains, so on the $2 billion sale that Bezos made, he saved $140 million that he would have paid to Washington state. On the entire sale of 50 million shares over the next year, he saved more than at least 600 million.

What is California’s Billionaire’s tax

California’s proposed ballot initiative has been proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West to offset federal budget cuts that will affect California’s health care system. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires. The tax would retroactively apply to those who were California residents as of January 1, 2026. In December 2025, venture capitalist Peter Thiel announced that he opened an office for his family investment company in Miami. Donald Trump’s AI czar David Sacks unveiled a new office for his venture capital firm, Craft Ventures, in Austin, Texas.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday pronounced a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act that barred the agencies from probing corruption charges against government officials without the Centre’s permission.A bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and BVNagarathna differed on the decision with the former judge observing that the said provision is constitutionally valid and the latter holding it as unconstitutional and should be struck down. Justice Nagarathna said that no prior sanction should be needed from competent authority to prosecute a public official, claiming that the requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act“Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken. This provision is an attempt to resurrect what has been earlier struck down in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments. The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection,” Justice Nagarathna observed as quoted by Live Law.She added that corruption in the country is rampant and pervasive and there is a need to have strong anti-corruption law, claiming that section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act protects a corrupt official.Meanwhile, Justice K V Viswanathan said that the provision is valid but Lokpal/Lokayuta should decide whether a govt official should be prosecuted or not. he added that striking down Section 17A would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.“Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta of the State,” Justice Viswanathan observed.He added that unless honest and public servants are shielded from frivolous investigations, a “policy paralysis” will set in.He also emphasised that a fine balance has to be maintained between the need to protect a public servant from mala fide cases and the importance of upholding probity in public offices.He in his opinion reasoned that object of Section 17A was not to condone illegal acts but to have a screening mechanism. “Bhagvad Geeta says for a self-respecting man even death is more preferable than disrepute. In this age of technology and social media the act of parading in court etc. is irreversible even if proven innocent later”, the judge said. The bench thus, ordered referring the matter to the Chief Justice of India. We direct the Registry to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to hear the matter afreshThis comes after ‘Centre for Public Interest Litigation’ filed a plea in the apex court, claiming that introduction of Section 17A in PC Act was nothing but resurrection of the earlier Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, infamously known as ‘single directive’ which mandated the CBI to take the Centre’s sanction before probing joint secretary and above level officers.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, had contended that Section 17A had become a tool to shield corrupt officials and obstruct legitimate inquiries.What the law saysAccording to the Section 17A of the act, no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval“Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month,” it adds.