Andhra Pradesh high court asks Maoists' kin to approach Chhattisgarh police for mortal remains
Bharatamma, the mother of Keshava Rao, alias Basavaraj, and Srinivasa Rao, the brother of Nageswara Rao, moved house motion petitions before the high court seeking directions to Chhattisgarh police to hand over the bodies so that they can perform their last rites in a dignified manner. Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, senior counsel A Satya Prasad said when they approached the IG office in Chhattisgarh, seeking to take the bodies, police turned down their request and asked them to approach AP police.
When they approached the SPs of Bapatla and Srikakulam districts, they were threatened and told not to seek custody of the bodies, Satya Prasad alleged.
He said the actions of AP and Chhattisgarh police are violative of several Supreme Court judgements, which state that the dead have the right to receive dignified last rites. He said the petitions were filed before AP high court as part of the cause of action arose in the state.
He pleaded for directions to gain custody of the bodies so that their last rites can be performed according to the customs and traditions of the families.
Responding to the petitions, Praful Bharath, advocate general of Chhattisgarh, said as the incident took place in Chhattisgarh, AP high court does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the petitions. He said out of 27 persons who died in the encounter, postmortem examinations have been completed for 21 bodies.
Postmortem of the remaining bodies would be completed by Saturday evening, and the next step in the procedure is to hand over the bodies to the families.
He denied the petitioners' allegations that Chhattisgarh police chased them away and denied to hand over the bodies.
Andhra Pradesh advocate general Dammalapati Srinivas also said that the petitioners ought to have filed the petition before Chhattisgarh high court.
He also denied the allegations of threatening the petitioners and putting them under house arrest by AP police. Deputy solicitor general, Pasala Punnarao, said CRPF was not involved in the encounter and therefore, Union govt cannot be a party to the litigation.
Considering all the arguments, the high court bench of Justices N Harinath and Y Lakshmana Rao said they intend to dispose of the petitions without going into the issue of territorial jurisdiction. As the advocate general of Chhattisgarh submitted that handing over of bodies is the next step in the procedure, the high court gave the petitioners liberty to approach the police to seek custody of the bodies and disposed of the petitions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mint
12 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
2 women get 12-year rigorous imprisonment for heroin possession
Ludhiana: A local court sentenced two women drug peddlers, who are siblings, to 12-year rigorous imprisonment each for possession of around 1kg heroin. Special court judge Harvinder Singh also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the two convicts. In default of payment of the fine, they will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. On July 6, 2020, STF Phase Four, Mohali, police station booked Kiran Bala of Chuharpur, now a tenant at Mohalla Durgapuri, and Suman Bala of the same area, under the NDPS Act for possession of the contraband. As per the prosecution, on that date, SI Gurcharan Singh and a police party at Jassian Road area of Haibowal, received information that the sisters were to supply heroin to a customer from their house in Durgapuri. Later, the police party apprehended the duo riding a scooter driven by Kiran Bala. Upon checking, a large black polythene bag containing heroin was recovered. Police filed a case and arrested them. During trial, the accused pleaded false implication and stated that nothing was recovered from them. The defence counsel contended that the alleged independent witness, Ismile alias Yusuf, who allegedly witnessed the recovery, was not examined by the prosecution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Elin Nordegren Show Off Her Huge Size In New Vacation Photos 33 Bridges Undo In the absence of his testimony, statements of official witnesses could not be believed. The court didn't find force in the submission of the defence counsel and held, "It is now settled law that the testimony of police officials is as good as that of independent witnesses. The statements of police officials cannot be discarded merely because of the colour of their office. Whenever the case of the prosecution is based only on the statements of police officials, the only precaution for the court is to scrutinise their testimony with some more care and caution. " The court also turned down the submission of the accused about false implication in the case. The court observed that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and in view of the facts, possession of the accused is fully proved on record, and they failed to give a satisfactory explanation for that. "Moreover, there appears to be no justification for the police to falsely implicate the accused, from whose possession a huge quantity of contraband was recovered. It is highly improbable that such a huge quantity of intoxicant material would be arranged by the police officials in order to falsely implicate the accused," the court remarked. MSID:: 122902813 413 |
