Latest news with #Chhattisgarh
Time of India
12-06-2025
- Sport
- Time of India
Ayush Pandey's century powers Bilaspur Bulls; Raipur Rhinos win
RAIPUR: Day six of the Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League (CCPL) Season 2, organised by the Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh, delivered two exciting matches at the Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh International Cricket Stadium on Wednesday. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In the first match, Bilaspur Bulls defeated Surguja Tigers by 28 runs. Put in to bat first after Surguja Tigers won the toss, Bilaspur Bulls posted a challenging 191 for the loss of 4 wickets in 20 overs. Ayush Pandey scored the season's first century, remaining unbeaten on 102 runs off 66 balls, which included 10 fours and 3 sixes. Captain Shashank Singh contributed 40 runs, and Shubham Maurya made 31. In response, Surguja Tigers managed 163 for the loss of 9 wickets in their 20 overs. Ashutosh Singh was the top scorer with 62 runs, while Sanidhya Hurkat added 37. Md. Irfan was the pick of the bowlers for Bilaspur, claiming 4 wickets, while Varun Singh Bhuie took 2 wickets. In the second match, Raipur Rhinos secured a 5-wicket victory over Raigarh Lions. Raipur won the toss and elected to field. Raigarh Lions were bowled out for 121 in 19.4 overs. Mayank Verma scored 37 runs off 31 balls, and Ashish Pandey added 19. Raipur's bowlers shared the wickets, with Mayank Yadav, Ashish Chouhan, Shreyam Sundaram, and Gaurav Chaturvedi taking 2 wickets each. Chasing 122, Raipur Rhinos reached 127 for 5 wickets in 18.5 overs. Anuj Tiwari led the chase with 35 runs, and Amandeep Khare contributed 27. For Raigarh, Pawandeep and Praveen took a wicket each. Shreyam Sundaram was declared Man of the Match.
Time of India
07-06-2025
- Sport
- Time of India
Bilaspur Bulls beat Raipur Rhinos in Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League super over thriller
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh Cricket Premier League (CCPL) Season 2 began with a thrilling Super Over finish, as Bilaspur Bulls defeated Raipur Rhinos at the Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh International Cricket Stadium on Thursday evening. Bilaspur Bulls captain and all-rounder Shashank Singh led from the front, scoring a crucial 41 runs off just 25 balls. His innings helped anchor the team to a competitive total of 151 for 6 in 20 overs. Prateek Yadav (27) and Ayush Pandey (24) also contributed to the Bulls' score. For Raipur Rhinos, Shreyam Sundaram took two important wickets. Chasing 152, Raipur Rhinos matched the score, posting 151 for 5 in 20 overs. Harsh Sharma scored 42 runs, and Amandeep Khare added 24. Harsh Rathore was effective with the ball for the Bulls, picking up two key wickets to restrict the chase. With the match tied, a Super Over decided the winner. Raipur Rhinos managed only 9 runs, which Bilaspur Bulls chased down in four deliveries, finishing at 11 for 1 to claim victory in the tournament opener. Organised by the Chhattisgarh State Cricket Sangh, CCPL Season 2 will continue until 15 June, featuring top talent from across the state. The exciting start promises a thrilling season for cricket fans in Chhattisgarh. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
04-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh teachers union challenges school rationalisation orders in HC citing constitutional violations
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh Vidyalayin Shikshak Karmachari Sangh, along with 34 teachers, challenged two state govt orders dated 28 April 2025 and 2 August 2024 in the High Court. The petitioners contend that the govt's ongoing rationalisation process for schools and teachers violates established norms. Counsel Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, representing the petitioners, stated that the move to approach the court came after their protests against the initial orders did not receive a positive response from the govt. The petitioners claim the state govt's orders are arbitrary, illegal, and were issued without proper authority. They highlight a decision by the State Council of Ministers on 9 July 2024 regarding the rationalisation of schools and teachers. However, they allege that the School Education Department Secretary subsequently issued instructions and guidelines for this process without legal authority. Citing Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the petition argues that all executive actions of a state govt must be expressed in the name of the Governor. As the challenged orders were not issued in the Governor's name, the petitioners assert they are not valid state govt orders and are therefore unenforceable. The petitioners have referred to a judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Shitala Diwan Vs. State of CG and Ors., decided on 24 January 2017. According to the petitioners, the orders mandate the merger of primary schools with middle schools, and both primary and middle schools with higher secondary schools when co-located. This merger, they argue, would lead to headmasters in primary and middle schools being reassigned as teachers, thereby reducing the number of sanctioned headmaster posts as per the Chhattisgarh School Shiksha Sewa (Shaikshik evam Prashasnik Samvarg) Bharti Tatha Padonnati Niyam, 2019. They contend this makes the orders illegal and liable to be quashed. The petitioners also pointed out that the amalgamation would reduce the total number of schools below sanctioned and approved figures, without separate orders for such changes. They added that the new orders would disrupt the Balwadi scheme, which runs alongside primary schools under the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the New Education Policy, 2020, as regular school teachers are engaged in Balwadi activities. They also highlighted that many teachers engaged as Cluster Academy Centre coordinators, overseeing various schools and coordination, have been overlooked in the new orders, leading to conflicts. Furthermore, the petitioners submitted that the rationalisation proposed in the orders is subject-wise, which they argue is futile and contrary to the Niyam, 2019, as the subject-wise posting of teachers was amended and deleted in the 2019 rules. The petitioners have therefore filed a writ petition seeking to quash the orders issued by the School Education Department Secretary, deeming them to be without authority of law.
Hindustan Times
04-06-2025
- General
- 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
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC junks plea for SIT, compensation & inquiry commission in Sukma violence against tribal Christians
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought various reliefs, including compensation, the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and a Commission of Inquiry. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the reliefs sought, such as compensation and the constitution of an SIT or Inquiry Commission under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register First Information Reports (FIRs), provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Some officials reportedly refused to acknowledge complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The Additional Advocate General argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for demands such as compensation or the formation of an SIT or Inquiry Commission. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law, such as filing an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the concerned court. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
