Achievement belongs to every citizen, says Andhra CM over record-breaking Yoga event
A total of 3,00,105 people participated in the event organised by the Government of India. This set the record for the largest yoga lesson ever.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi led the event by performing the Common Yoga Protocol with the participants at the RK Beach.
He was joined by Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, Governor S. Abdul Nazeer, and Central and state ministers.
The event was held on a 28-km stretch from RK Beach to Bhogapuram. It broke the record set in 2023 in Surat, which hosted a Yoga session with 1.47 lakh participants at one location.
Reacting to a tweet by Guinness World Records on Sunday, Chief Minister Naidu posted that this achievement belongs to every citizen of Andhra Pradesh.
'I thank each and every one of you who made this possible. Your enthusiasm and dedication have been truly inspiring. This record shows what we can accomplish when we unite with a purpose. Congratulations to everyone!' wrote Naidu.
'And we did it! Heartfelt thanks to all the participants, TDP leaders and cadre, government officials, and everyone who contributed to achieving this remarkable feat,' posted Human Resources Development Minister Nara Lokesh.
The event marked the culmination of Yogandhra, a month-long initiative by the state government to create public awareness.
The programme began at 6.30 a.m. on Saturday, but participants had started arriving as early as 2 a.m.
According to officials, a QR code-based tracking system set a new standard for crowd management and real-time attendance accuracy.
A day before the main event, Visakhapatnam set another Guinness World Record for the largest synchronised Surya Namaskar with 22,122 tribal students performing together.
Additionally, the state achieved 21 recognitions in the World Book of Records, showcasing its organisational excellence and public enthusiasm.
Nine Indian Naval warships participated in the main event, symbolising national unity and pride.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Chandrababu Naidu's proposal to use Godavari floodwaters for Andhra Pradesh returned by green panel
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Faced with strong opposition from Telangana, the Chandrababu Naidu government's Rs 81,900 crore Polavaram Banakacherla Link Project (PBLP) - proposed to bring Godavari flood waters to Andhra Pradesh's arid region - has run into rough weather with the Union environment a June 17 meeting, the ministry's Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) for environmental clearance has "returned" the project proposal, citing "several representations" on it alleging that the project may violate the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980. The committee has asked the Andhra government to instead consult the Central Water Commission (CWC) first on the "inter-state" matter and only then approach the EAC. It has also noted the project's linkage with the Indira Sagar Polavaram Multipurpose Project which was given environmental clearance way back on January 25, 2005, but is sub-judice due to submergence-related issues in the states of Odisha and light of the same, the EAC has recommended that the Andhra government should "comprehensively assess the availability of floodwaters in consultation with the CWC". Furthermore, the EAC noted that "several representations have been received via email, alleging that the proposed scheme may be in violation of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980." "In view of this, it is imperative that the PP should approach CWC for examining the inter-state issues and granting necessary clearance/permission before submitting the proposal for framing the TOR for conducting EIA study. The EAC decided to return the proposal on the above lines," the minutes of the EAC meeting have was first to report on the ambitious project being piloted by the Naidu government with the chief minister himself taking the lead, holding rounds of reviews to ensure that the project secures green clearances at the earliest. The state aims to start construction on it by March 2026 and complete it by May 2029 and has been fast tracking pre-construction requirements AP government, in fact, readied its mandatory pre-feasibility report for the project and submitted its proposal to the EAC by June 5, for consideration at the June 17 meet. The project, however, has ruffled Telangana Naidu government has submitted to the Centre that the PBLP is aimed at making Andhra Pradesh a "drought-proof state" by utilising only the flood waters of river Godavari, a contention that Telangana finds unacceptable. The Revantha Reddy-led government has held that the project is violative of the AP Reorganisation Act of 2014 as well as the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1980. Reddy had called on Union jal shakti minister CR Patil on June 19 to underline his concerns on the issue.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Empowering state police to enforce drone regulations: A legislative need in India's Evolving space
In the current age of multifarious technological evolution and some significant ongoing warfare, drones have emerged as one of the biggest challenges for state. Recognizing the growing use and potential risks associated with drones, the Government of India enacted the Drone Rules, 2021 under the authority of The Aircraft Act, 1934. However, recent incidents across India involving unregistered, unauthorized, and even hostile drones have highlighted a critical gap in enforcement mechanism in the Aircraft Act with respect to Drones in particular. Alarmingly certain recent events have shown the usage of categorized drones by non-state and criminal actors for disruption of public safety causing damage to mankind and critical infrastructure. While the Central Government and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have the primary regulatory role, State Police and state law enforcement agencies currently lack the statutory authority to act effectively and independently against drone-related violations. This legal void and statutory silence have implications for national security, civil safety, and privacy rights. Need for statutory empowerment of state police There have been multiple incidences in recent past loudly exposing the enforcement void. Under the present statue these frameworks do not empower State Police explicitly, nor do they prescribe procedures for local enforcement leaving authorities on the ground with little recourse when encountering unauthorized drones. Some of such incidences are mentioned below - A. Misuse of Drones by non-state actors 1. Jammu Airport Drone Attack (2021) In a first of its kind incident, drones dropped explosives at the Air Force Station, Jammu, injuring personnel and damaging property. The attack exposed a glaring vulnerability with no defined role for local police to neutralize or investigate rogue drones, especially near high-value assets. 2. Drone Flight near Oil Refinery – Mumbai (2022) A drone was spotted hovering near the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) refinery in Mumbai. Refineries are classified as "critical infrastructure," and drone activity could potentially aid planning of sabotage or attacks. Mumbai Police could not arrest the concerned due to absence of direct enforcement powers under present statue. 3. Oil Depot Survey Attempt – Chennai (2023) A drone was seized while it was filming the periphery of a petroleum depot in North Chennai. It was alleged to be used for illicit surveillance for potential vandalism or intelligence gathering. Operator fled; police were unable to prosecute under Aircraft Act and Drone Rules due to lack of clear seizure protocol and state powers. B. Urban Drone Misuse: Multiple City Incidents 1. Mumbai (2022) – Unauthorized drones were spotted over Mantralaya and Bombay High Court, raising alarms of potential surveillance on government premises. Mumbai Police had to depend on the DGCA for post-facto verification, delaying enforcement. 2. Bengaluru (2023) – Drones flown near the Kempegowda International Airport triggered disruptions and led to flight diversions. CISF and airport authorities were unable to take immediate action due to the lack of real-time tracking and police authority under current laws. 3. Hyderabad (2023) – Commercial drone operators were found filming over private gated communities and industrial estates without consent or permits. Local police cited lack of clarity under the Aircraft Act to prosecute for aerial trespass. C. Drones in Naxal Territories: Emerging Internal Security Risk 1. Chhattisgarh (2022) – Security forces discovered a drone crash site used by Naxalites for surveillance of CRPF camps. The drone was unregistered, but local police lacked the jurisdiction to prosecute under Aircraft Act. 2. Odisha (2022) – Drones were reported scouting forested areas near Malkangiri and Kandhamal, suspected to be used for arms drops. The local police confiscated equipment but faced no clear legal procedure for seizure, examination, or prosecution. IV. Global Approaches to Local Enforcement Across the world, democratic nations are facing rise in drone usage and thus associated risks. Many of them have decentralized enforcement powers, recognizing that ground-level response is essential for public safety, national security, and privacy protection. The following international models offer useful precedents for India: 1. United States of America Under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, the Local and state law enforcement agencies are empowered to detain drones, question operators, and initiate enforcement actions. 2. United Kingdom Following the 2018 Gatwick Airport drone disruption, the UK amended the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Police Act to empower law enforcement with the authority to land, seize, and inspect drones. It provides the police with powers to issue on-the-spot fines up to £1,000 for registration and permission breaches. 3. France France enforces strict drone regulations under the Code de l'Aviation Civile (Civil Aviation Code) 1958. Under the code, Municipal police are empowered to inspect drones and question operators. In Paris, drone surveillance and enforcement are handled jointly by Police and Directorate General of Civil Aviation. 4. Germany Germany's Luftverkehrs-Ordnung (Air Traffic Regulation) 1964 empowers State Police to detain unlicensed drones and initiate proceedings under aviation safety and privacy laws. 5. Australia Under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 1998, Australia empowers State and Territory Police to enforce no-fly zones, register violations, and confiscate rogue drones. V. Existing Legal Framework: Aircraft Act 1934 & Drone Rules 2021 Drones are Unmanned Arial Vehicles which is a type of Unmanned Aircraft System that falls under the ambit of Aircraft as per section 2(1) of the Aircraft Act 1934. Drones are thus governed by The Aircraft Act, 1934 and The Drones Rules, 2021. Under the Aircraft Act, 1934, the Central Government is empowered to regulate the manufacture, possession, operation, and safety of aircraft. The Drone Rules, 2021, notified under this Act, introduced a streamlined framework for drone classification, registration, pilot certification, and operation permissions. In case of any violations of Drone Rules, Rule no. 50 of Drone Rules 2021 states levying penalty up to Rs 1 lakh by the DGCA or any other authority authorized by central government in accordance with provisions of section 10A of Aircraft Act which mentions about adjudication of penalties. As far as cognizance of offence is concerned, as per section 12B of the Aircraft Act, no courts can take cognizance without a complaint made by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) or Director General of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (DGBCAS) or Director General of Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (DGAIIB). This clearly shows that state police have no statutory authority to register a FIR in case of violation of the Drone Rules under The Aircraft Act. Suggested Legislative Amendments The need to empower State Police and law enforcement agencies to act against unauthorized drone activity cannot be realized without clear statutory backing. While current law i.e. The Aircraft Act 1934 centralize enforcement under DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, they lack a federalist structure for operational enforcement. The following suggested amendments aim to create an enabling legislative framework: 1. Insertion of a new sub section under section 12 of The Aircraft Act 1934 Since Section 12 (B) of the Act clearly mandates prior sanction for any cognizance to be taken against unauthorized Drones by DGCA or DGBCAS or DGAAIB, it gives no autonomous authority to state police/state enforcement agencies for acting against offences committed by unmanned aerial vehicles endangering public safety. Therefore Section 12 can be enhanced with a new sub section – 'c' providing for autonomous powers and rights to the local police to address unauthorized arial activities. The new sub section may include the following to ensure strict implementation of Drone Rules: (a) Any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector shall have the authority to: * Intercept, search, and seize any unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and associated devices, including drones, found operating in contravention of this Act or any rules made thereunder. * Require any drone operator to produce a valid Unique Identification Number (UIN), flight authorization, remote pilot license, and other necessary permits. (b) State Police shall have the jurisdiction to register FIR against anyone responsible for violating drone rules, conduct investigations, and initiate legal proceedings as per the procedure established by law for offences punishable under the Aircraft Act 1934 and Drone Rules 2021 without mandatory requirement of complaint made by DGCA, DGBCAS or DGAAIB. Justification: This provision will create statutory recognition of police powers and ensures lawful drone seizure, investigation, and prosecution without requiring prior approval from central authorities—essential for time-sensitive security interventions. 2. Insertion of a new clause under sub section 5(2) of The Aircraft Act 1934 An amendment can be made under section 5(2) of The Aircraft Act by adding a new clause 'r' making central government duty bound to provide for rules regarding localized scheme of enforcement prescribing the powers, functions, responsibilities, and standard operating procedures for enforcement of drone-related laws by State Governments and their police. Justification: At present, no delegated legislation exists to support drone law enforcement by States. This amendment provides the statutory hook for the Centre to issue rules that support decentralized implementation. A written standard operating procedure for States will also rule out all sorts of ambiguity amongst police of different states with respect to addressing drone rules violations. 3. Purpose of arial activity should be intimated To curb Drone missuses, the Drone Rules 2021 should be amended requiring operators to pre-register the purpose of their arial activity on the Digital Sky platform, with full access granted to police. This will help address security and individual's privacy concerns. For operationalizing the proposed legislative framework, a structured, multi-phase roadmap must be adopted. The implementation plan must account for legal preparedness, inter-agency coordination, infrastructure, and technical capacity-building at the State level. VII. Conclusion As India's airspace becomes increasingly populated with drones, it is imperative that enforcement should be decentralized. While the DGCA and Ministry of Civil Aviation remain the principal regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies particularly police being the first responder to any adversary must be empowered to register a criminal case autonomously against unauthorized or dangerous drone operations protecting mankind and infrsastructure. Empowering State Police through clear legislative amendments will bridge the existing enforcement vacuum, enhance national security and urban safety, create accountability at both operational and regulatory levels. Therefore it's need of the hour that India must adopt a dual-layer enforcement model comprising of central regulation with decentralized enforcement mirroring global best practices to ensure persistent security. (Writer is a lawyer practising in Supreme Court of India, Allahabad High Court & tribunals) Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Standards & QCOs: A strategic lever for Viksit Bharat manufacturing agenda
Prime Minister, in his Independence Day address in 2014, urged the industry, especially MSMEs of India, to manufacture goods in the country with "zero defects" and to ensure that the goods have "zero effect" on the environment (ZED). The revised BIS Act was promulgated in 2016, providing stronger legal backing to bring under compulsory certification regime any goods or article of any scheduled industry, process, system or service which the government considers necessary in the public interest or for the protection of human, animal or plant health, safety of the environment, prevention of unfair trade practices, or national security. The intent was clear — as we move towards Viksit Bharat, the government wants to raise the quality bar in the domestic market and eventually for exports. In the last few years, we have seen enactment of regulations by the Government of India that 'raised the floor' by imposing a minimum quality standard on all producers selling in the domestic market. A total of 187 Quality Control Orders (QCOs), covering 769 products, have been notified for compulsory BIS certification by various regulators and line ministries of the Government of India. Industry is fast catching up to comply with these regulations. Notwithstanding some teething issues in the implementation of these QCOs, they have to be a key pillar of India's industrial growth strategy. They are now emerging as strategic tools to strengthen India's manufacturing ecosystem, ensure consumer safety, and build global trust in Indian-made goods. The government has been systematically expanding the QCO regime across sectors to curb substandard imports, safeguard consumer interests, and foster a robust, quality-conscious manufacturing ecosystem without any major disruptions in the supply chain. The government has adopted a consultative and collaborative approach to the formulation and implementation of QCOs, with an emphasis on active industry engagement. Reflecting the government's sensitivity to industry readiness, especially for MSMEs, several QCOs have been notified with phased implementation timelines and given due extensions as well. The government is also undertaking concerted efforts to strengthen testing infrastructure, streamline certification processes, and extend capacity-building support. Developed countries have long used technical regulations as tools, inter alia, to shape global trade dynamics. For many decades, India and other developing countries sought special and differential treatment for their exports to comply with such high — and often arbitrary — standards of the developed world, but to no avail. India's strategic use of QCOs reflects a shift from being a passive consumer market to an assertive, quality-focused manufacturing economy. Going forward, India must move from being an adaptor of international standards to a developer of these standards in international foras. Countries such as the Republic of Korea and, more recently, China have shifted from marginally participating in international standards-setting organisations such as the ISO or the IEC to chairing some of their working groups and developing an increasing number of standards. The time is now for India to set the standards on the world stage. The author is the Director General of FICCI
