Two women Maoists from Telangana among 27 killed in Chhattisgarh encounter
Hyderabad: Two women Maoists from Telangana were among those killed in a major gun battle between security forces and CPI (Maoist) cadres in the dense forests between Bijapur and Narayanpur in Chhattisgarh on Wednesday.
The encounter, which left 27 Maoists dead, marks a significant blow to the insurgent group.
The two deceased women were identified as Sangeeta and Bhoomika, both aged around 35 and belonging to Telangana. They were active members of Peoples Liberation Guerrilla Army Company No. 07, a guerrilla unit of the banned CPI (Maoist). Each carried a bounty of 10 lakh. The duo were the bodyguards of the Maoist chief Basavaraju.
Their deaths take the number of Maoists from the Telugu-speaking states killed in the operation to five. Among them was Nambala Keshav Rao, widely known by his alias Basavaraju, the General Secretary of CPI (Maoist). Aged about 70 and a native of Srikakulam district in Andhra Pradesh, he was the most senior Maoist leader and carried a combined bounty of 10 crore.
Also killed was Jang Naveen alias Madhu, aged 45, from Prakasam district in AP. A high-ranking strategist, he was a member of the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee and part of the Central Committee's strategic team, with a bounty of 25 lakh.
The fifth deceased was Ugendra alias Vivek, around 30 years old, from Telangana. He was a member of PLGA Company No. 07 and affiliated with the People's Party Committee (PPCM). His bounty stood at 8 lakh.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Parliament's laws out of contempt ambit : SC
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has rejected a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others, who claimed that the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 to curb Maoist activity was in contempt of the court's landmark verdict against vigilante group Salwa Judum that year. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' a two-judge bench comprising justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said. Sundar had alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in 2011 to stop support to vigilante groups like Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. However, the bench observed that it was the duty of the state government and the Centre to take adequate steps for restoration of peace and rehabilitation of the residents who have been affected by violence from whatever quarter.
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Not contempt': SC refuses to quash Chhattisgarh's anti-Naxal law
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, holding that its enactment by the state legislature does not amount to contempt of the court's previous order that outlawed the controversial Salwa Judum militia. While refusing to strike down the 2011 legislation, the top court, however, made it unequivocally clear that it is the constitutional duty of both the Centre and the Chhattisgarh government to ensure peace and rehabilitation for the people affected by violence in the region. 'We note that it is duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen,' a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated in its May 15 order, released recently. The bench noted that though the earlier order dated July 5, 2011 in the Nandini Sundar Vs State of Chhattisgarh case had directed the state to desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in anti-Naxal operations, the 2011 Act did not violate or override that ruling, nor could the enactment of a law be equated to contempt of court. 'Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a Court, including this Court, for simply making the law…The passing of an enactment subsequent to the order of this Court by the legislature of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot, in our view, be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by this Court,' held the bench. The bench added that the legislative action undertaken by the State was an exercise of its legitimate power under the Constitution. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law,' it said. Led by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, the petitioners — sociologist Nandini Sundar, historian Ramachandra Guha, former bureaucrat EAS Sarma, had argued that the enactment of the 2011 law was in contempt of the apex court's July 2011 judgment, which held that the practice of appointing tribal youth as SPOs and arming them to fight Maoists was unconstitutional. They contended that the new law merely gave legislative backing to an arrangement that had already been struck down by the court. However, the court noted that while the earlier directions in the Nandini Sundar judgment prohibited the use of SPOs for counter-insurgency operations and ordered disbanding of armed vigilante groups like Salwa Judum, the enactment of a new law by the state legislature could not, by itself, be equated to contempt. It added that the petitioners must mount an appropriate legal challenge if they sought to assail the validity of the 2011 law because the 'interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court.' The region has witnessed a decades-old Maoist insurgency, marked by frequent clashes between security forces and armed rebels, and has claimed thousands of lives over the years, including those of civilians, security personnel, and insurgents. The present litigation arises out of the Supreme Court's landmark 2011 judgment that had declared the use of tribal civilians as SPOs to combat Maoist insurgency as unconstitutional and violative of human rights. The top court had categorically banned the use of SPOs, many of them minors, and ordered disbanding of private militias like Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos, terming their activities as 'unconstitutional'. In that order, the apex court directed the immediate cessation of using SPOs in any form of counter-insurgency operations, withdrawal of all firearms issued to SPOs, prosecution of those responsible for criminal acts committed under the aegis of Salwa Judum and NHRC and CBI probes into grave human rights violations, including alleged arson and killings in some identified districts in Chhattisgarh. However, soon after the 2011 verdict, the state government enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, purportedly to legitimise the appointment of locals in auxiliary armed forces, prompting fresh litigation and a contempt plea by the petitioners, who argued that the enactment was an 'attempt to nullify' the Supreme Court's binding directions and that the state's move to reintroduce civilian combatants under a new statutory garb amounted to willful disobedience. They also flagged non-compliance with the court's directive to rehabilitate former SPOs, prosecute members of Salwa Judum for past atrocities, and investigate attacks on activists such as Swami Agnivesh, who was assaulted in 2011 while trying to visit affected villages. Rejecting these arguments, the bench held that enacting a law is a legislative act and must be challenged accordingly, not via contempt jurisdiction. It also took note of the Centre's and Chhattisgarh government's submission that they had complied with the directions issued in 2011 and had filed the requisite compliance reports. The Salwa Judum was a state-sponsored civil militia movement initiated in 2005 as a counter-insurgency strategy against Maoist rebels in southern Chhattisgarh. Comprising largely tribal youth armed with basic training and firearms, the movement rapidly became notorious for serious human rights abuses, including extra-judicial killings, sexual violence and forced displacement of villagers. The Salwa Judum was disbanded officially following the 2011 judgment.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Blake Lively WITHDRAWS 'emotional distress' claims against Justin Baldoni in 'It Ends With Us' legal battle
Blake Lively has formally withdrawn two claims against actor and director Justin Baldoni in their ongoing legal battle following their collaboration on the 2024 romantic drama It Ends With Us. The withdrawn claims specifically related to allegations of "emotional distress", in the actress' lawsuit against her director filed in December 2024. According to Variety, Judge Lewis Liman, who is overseeing the case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, confirmed that Lively's claims for emotional distress would be thrown out. The judge noted that the withdrawal was based on 'the plaintiff's representation that the relevant claims will be withdrawn,' and as a result, the director's motion to compel Lively to release her medical and therapy records was denied. Lively initially filed a lawsuit, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and orchestrating a public smear campaign. In response, Baldoni's team moved to access Lively's mental health records, arguing that such evidence was essential to counter her claims of 'severe emotional distress and pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, frustration and mental anguish'. However, the court noted that without the emotional distress claims, those records were no longer relevant. Judge Liman instructed both parties to decide whether the dismissal of these claims would be permanent (with prejudice) or temporary (without prejudice), and offered the actress the opportunity to choose to try to reach an agreement with Baldoni. If no formal dismissal is made, Lively will be barred from introducing any related evidence. Lively's attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, criticised Baldoni's legal team for their approach which they claim is 'a press stunt'. In a statement to the media, her lawyers said, 'Ms. Lively has offered to dismiss those claims because they are no longer necessary and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other active claims in her lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation. ' Meanwhile, Baldoni is suing both Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million. He alleges the actress attempted to extort him and later defamed him through statements published in The New York Times. The legal battle now involves six separate lawsuits in various courts. Check out our list of the latest Hindi , English , Tamil , Telugu , Malayalam , and Kannada movies . Don't miss our picks for the best Hindi movies , best Tamil movies, and best Telugu films .
