Telangana police officers awarded President's Medal for service and distinction
A distinguished group of police personnel from Telangana has been awarded the President's Medal for Meritorious Service (MSM), a recognition of their long-standing dedication, exemplary fieldwork and leadership in some of the State's toughest policing environments.
The list spans a wide range of units, from the elite Greyhounds and OCTOPUS forces to intelligence cells and district police stations. Two senior officers, Vijay Kumar, serving as Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, and M. Ramana Kumar, SP (NC), Sangareddy, have also been awarded the President's Medal for Distinguished Service (PSM).
Among those recognised for meritorious service is K. Rama Krishna Prasad Rao, Addl. SP (Admn), TGPA, and Bandi Venkateswara Reddy, Addl. Commandant, 8th Battalion, TGSP. Others include Atmakuri Venkateswarlu, who commands a Greyhounds unit, and Araveti Bhanu Prasad Rao, Inspector of Police, IT & C, Hyderabad.
Ajella Srinivasa Rao, a retired Reserve Inspector from TGSP, currently in the United States, has also been named among the awardees, along with officers like S. Venkateswarlu from ACB Hyderabad, Mahankali Madhu of the Intelligence Cell, and several Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables from TGSP units.
Meanwhile, 19 more personnel, largely from frontline and tactical units, have also been honoured. These include R. Bhaaskaran, who heads operations at the State Intelligence Bureau, Telangana, and serves as SP, CI Cell Intelligence, P.K.S. Ramesh, an Assistant Commandant with the Greyhounds, currently posted as DSP (AR), K. Purushotham Reddy, Inspector with the SIB, now serving as DSP/ACP, Gajwel, Siddipet, K. Shiva Prasad and B. Kumar, posted in Bhadradri Kothagudem and Mulugu districts respectively, have received the award for their ground-level contributions.
A strong contingent from the Greyhounds has been recognised for operational excellence in anti-extremist duties. Among them are G. Prathap Singh, K. Parusuram Naik, K. Thirupathaiah, Abdul Azeem, M. Papa Rao, N. Laliya, M. Bhaskara Rao, K. Venkanna, Malotu Ramulu, P. Satyanarayana, and V. Ramesh — all field personnel who have carried out dangerous assignments in Naxal-affected regions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
11 hours ago
- News18
From Pakistan To Naxals, Modi 3.0 Is All Action, No Ambiguity On National Security
Last Updated: PM Modi has reinforced India's national security doctrine with decisive, outcome-oriented action. It has been exactly one year of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's third term. At 74, with elections behind him and a clear mandate in hand, Modi has set out to shape his legacy – anchored firmly in one message: national security is non-negotiable. PM Modi has reinforced India's national security doctrine with decisive, outcome-oriented action. From launching Operation Sindoor to deporting illegal immigrants and crushing Naxal terror, Modi has abandoned strategic restraint in favour of strategic clarity – making it clear that India's security is not up for negotiation. A Steely Doctrine – Hardening With Time At the core of Modi's popularity is his unwavering stance on national security. Even as Gujarat's chief minister, he had declared that Pakistan must be 'answered in its own language" – criticising the then UPA government's muted response to terrorism. Since then, India has undergone a strategic transformation. It started with ' Ghar mein ghus ke maarna" – and evolved into a hardened national doctrine. In 2016, after the Uri terror attack by Lashkar-e-Taiba that killed 18 Indian soldiers, India responded with surgical strikes across the LoC. In 2019, after the Pulwama terror attack by Jaish-e-Mohammad killed over 40 CRPF personnel, India launched airstrikes on Jaish camps in Balakot—deep inside Pakistan. Operation Sindoor: Changing the Rules In a four-day conflict with Pakistan, India launched an 88-hour offensive, striking 9 terror targets and 11 airbases across Pakistan using armed drones, SCALP and Hammer missiles, and the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. This wasn't just military retaliation – it was the unshackling of India's old doctrine. For the first time, Pakistan's military became a legitimate target of anti-terror strikes. Pakistan's true colours – known to India for long – were exposed globally when it came out to defend and then avenge its terrorist groups that faced a beating from Indian bombs. Pakistan's military put its existence on the line for the terrorists, it attended their funerals and gave them assurances for protection and reconstruction — the secret was out. The act was over. If India wanted to fight terror, it must strike Pakistan's military and that it did. 11 airbases, several other air defence and radar sites, and Pakistani posts along the LoC — India acted with impunity and Pakistan was left scrambling — exposed and vulnerable. Now, the doctrine is permanently set in stone. As long as Pakistan sponsors terror, its terror and military targets are one and the same. Its nuclear blackmail will not be tolerated. And it cannot take the Indus water flow for granted. No treaties, no negotiations, no one-sided goodwill gestures. Pakistan will reap exactly what it sows. With this, the rules of the game have been changed. And given the direction India is headed under Modi, this doctrine is only going to grow stronger, harder and more effective. India Declares Final War on Red Terror 'If the Challenge is Tough, the Solution Will Be Tougher". This motto doesn't apply only to foreign enemies. Modi 3.0 is also wielding its iron resolve against internal threats—starting with India's decades-old left-wing insurgency which India has vowed to eliminate entirely by March 31st, 2026. The 58-year-old Naxal insurgency, once a dominant force across a 'Red Corridor" stretching over 182 districts and nearly 40 per cent of India's landmass in 2013, is now reduced to just 18 districts. Recently, India scored its biggest breakthrough in years—the killing of Nambala Keshava Rao alias Basavaraju, the supreme commander of the CPI (Maoist), in a 50-hour encounter. Trained by the LTTE, Basavaraju was known for brutal IED attacks and ambushes, and was responsible for over 150 security personnel deaths. Over 30 Maoists were eliminated, including Basavaraju. Significantly, this mission involved the District Reserve Guard of Chhattisgarh, comprising surrendered Naxals—proof that the ideological tide has turned. India's approach has been four-pronged: modern warfare tactics, relentless counter-Naxal operations, choking off funding and arms, and moving in with development schemes and governance. The push for road and internet connectivity, elections, and financial inclusion has made a real difference. Democracy is being delivered till the last mile – and with that, Naxalism is being bled of its oxygen. Dealing with Illegal Immigration National security in Modi 3.0 isn't just about warfare – it's about protecting India's demographic and territorial integrity. Since Operation Sindoor alone, that is, in less than a month, India has deported more than 2000 illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The strategy is simple: verify their foreign status, and send them packing. Hundreds have been transported on airplanes and trains to the Bangladesh border, where they are instructed to simply return to their homeland. The process is swift: identification, transportation to border camps, and repatriation via BSF – all often within hours. No court hearings. According to a source cited in an Indian Express report, 'the illegal immigrants are being ferried to the borders in IAF aircraft from various locations and handed over to the BSF to be held in makeshift camps along the border. They are provided food and some Bangladeshi currency, if needed, and 'pushed back" into their country after a few hours of detention." Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and the Bangladesh bordering states – Assam and Meghalaya are the states that are involved in this exercise so far. The success of this operation is hinged on a simple principle. Once rounded up, most illegal immigrants prefer to return safely rather than be detained and go through legal battles. But there are challenges ahead, as the number of deportations grow, Bangladesh is expected to resist this measure. In fact, there is already some pushback. Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula, director of the Military Operations Directorate of the Bangladesh Army, said at a press conference in Dhaka that 'push-ins are unacceptable". But for now he says, 'BGB is managing well, within international protocols." Ultimately, there is little Bangladesh can do if its citizens turn up at the border gates, having decided to return to their homeland. Now, such deportations have taken place on a smaller scale under previous governments as well, but some immigrants return undetected once the heat lowers. This time however, the Home Ministry is collecting biometric data to prepare a blacklist of deportees, who will be barred from applying for Aadhar cards. Similarly, in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, over a thousand Pakistani nationals were asked to leave India. top videos View all Though the move may appear harsh, it reflects Modi 3.0's uncompromising position: national security is paramount, and there is no room for ambiguity. From cross-border strikes to domestic crackdowns, just the first year of Modi's third term has redrawn India's national security landscape. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views About the Author Shubhangi Sharma Shubhangi Sharma is News Editor - Special Projects at News18. She covers foreign affairs and geopolitics, and also keeps a close watch on the national pulse of India. tags : Anti-Naxal operations anti-terror operations Narendra Modi National Security Naxal encounter Operation Sindoor Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 04, 2025, 12:33 IST News opinion OPINION | From Pakistan To Naxals, Modi 3.0 Is All Action, No Ambiguity On National Security
Hindustan Times
17 hours 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.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
No contempt if Parliament, legislatures simply make laws: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has said any law made by Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to contempt of court. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others. The contempt plea alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with its 2011 directions to stop support to vigilante groups such as Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. The petition contended that there has been contempt of the order of the apex court as the Chhattisgarh government has legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist/Naxal violence and legalising existing SPOs by inducting them as members. Besides accusing the Chhattisgarh government of not acknowledging the directions on Salwa Judum, the petitioners said instead of "desisting" from using SPOs and disarming them, the State government passed the "Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011" regularising all SPOs with effect from the date of the top court order on July 5, 2011. They alleged that the State government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security forces nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and SPOs. The top court on May 15 said the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of contempt. Delicate balance The top court said in order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. "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." The Bench added, "However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law." Considering the situation prevailing in Chhattisgarh over decades, the Bench outlined the need for "specific steps" to bring peace and rehabilitation in the affected areas through coordinated measures of the State and the Central government. "It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, 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," the court said. Judiciary is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by Parliament or any state legislature, the Bench added. "However, 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," it noted. The verdict pointed out that central to the legislative function was the power of the legislative organ to enact and amend laws. "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 Bench said. The top court underlined the legislature's powers to pass a law; to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a constitutional court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a constitutional court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment. "This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers." The order went on, "Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity."
