CM orders top security, cleanliness for Prez visit
1
2
Lucknow: Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Friday reviewed the preparations for President Droupadi Murmu's upcoming visit to Gorakhpur, where she will inaugurate the state's first AYUSH University, named after Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath, in Pipri, Bhathat area on July 1.
He directed the senior officials to ensure exceptional arrangements in terms of security, convenience, and cleanliness for the President's visit, so that the event becomes an unforgettable memory for Her Excellency.
The chief minister conducted an aerial survey, carried out an on-site inspection, and chaired a review meeting. He was briefed on the preparations by the university's vice chancellor and other senior officials.
The chief minister suggested that 'Uttar Pradesh' should be included in the university's name, given its significance as a major project for the state. He then inspected the arrangements along the President's route within the AYUSH University campus, including the site for sapling plantation, the Swiss cottage, main stage, and audience gallery. He issued instructions regarding security, cleanliness, and public convenience.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Get Affordable Health Coverage Today
Search7
Learn More
Undo
He also directed the vice-chancellor and administrative officials to prepare a model of the AYUSH University for the President's review, showcasing the academic buildings, OPD, IPD, OT, Panchakarma centre, and other special features of the institution.
After the inspection, the chief minister chaired a meeting with senior officials, emphasising that security arrangements must be of the highest standard.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
"Pathetic failure...no right to stay in their post": Sukanta Majumdar slams Mamata govt over Kolkata rape case
Union Minister and West Bengal BJP President Sukanta Majumdar strongly criticised the West Bengal government on Saturday following back-to-back crimes reported from educational institutions, including the recent RG Kar Medical College rape case. He said the government had no right to stay in their post if it could not ensure a safe environment for students. Majumdar emphasised that female students are not safe in West Bengal's educational institutions, citing the RG Kar Medical College incident and the latest law college case. While speaking to ANI, Majumdar said, "Both the incidents (recent and RG Kar rape case) happened inside an educational institution... Inability of the state government to stop these is a pathetic failure... Someone should take responsibility," Majumdar said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo He condemned the state government's pathetic failure in stopping these incidents and questioned their ability to maintain law and order and demanded that someone take responsibility for these failures, suggesting that the government has no right to remain in power if it cannot ensure safety. Reacting to the state government's justification, he further said, "You say police can't be everywhere... It must be at least accepted that the government is not able to maintain an environment of safety, and with such failures, they have no right to stay in their post." Live Events Earlier, Kolkata Police arrested the guard of the South Calcutta Law College , where a female student was allegedly gang-raped. Kolkata police said, "Guard of the Law College, Pinaki Banerjee (55) has also been arrested in the case." A female student was allegedly gang-raped inside the South Calcutta Law College in Kolkata's Kasba on Wednesday. Earlier, the police had arrested three accused within 24 hours. The three accused, named as Monojit Mishra (31), Zaib Ahmed (19), and Pramit Mukhopadhyay (20), were former students or staff members of the same law college. According to the police, the accused named in the FIR will be produced before the ACJM of Alipore, South 24 Parganas, with a prayer to remand them to Police Custody for a proper investigation into the case. The National Commission for Women (NCW) took suo motu cognisance of the incident on Friday. Taking immediate notice, NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar expressed deep concern and wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, urging a time-bound investigation under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Meanwhile, the alleged gangrape has triggered a political row between the leaders of the ruling TMC and the opposition BJP.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Qatar issues safety advisory after Iran's missile attack, urges residents to report any suspicious debris
This screen grab from AFPTV footage shows the remnants of an Iranian missile intercepted over Qatar on Monday, targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base. In the aftermath of a now-concluded military confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, the State of Qatar has issued a public safety alert, urging residents and citizens to report any suspicious debris possibly linked to a recent missile interception. The alert follows Iran's missile launch targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base in Qatar on Monday. In a joint statement, Qatar's Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior called on the public to exercise caution if they encounter unusual fragments or objects. The ministries stressed that any such material must not be touched or moved, citing the potential danger of hazardous substances. 'Handling such materials must be done exclusively by the competent authorities, due to the possibility that they may contain hazardous substances that could pose a threat to public safety,' the statement emphasized. The advisory comes in the wake of a missile attack by Iran, launched in retaliation for US strikes on several of Iran's nuclear sites during the recent 12-day conflict involving Israel and Iran. Former US President Donald Trump confirmed that 14 Iranian missiles were fired at the Al Udeid Air Base during the attack. According to Trump, 13 of those missiles were intercepted, and one was intentionally allowed to fall harmlessly to avoid unnecessary escalation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo 'It was a very weak response,' Trump said, downplaying the impact of Iran's actions. In response to the missile launch, Qatar swiftly summoned the Iranian ambassador to lodge a formal protest. The Qatari government condemned the attack and reiterated its commitment to national sovereignty and the safety of its residents. The joint government statement also instructed the public to immediately report any unusual objects or fragments to authorities 'so that they may be dealt with in accordance with approved procedures.' Qatari authorities clarified that this is strictly a public safety matter and urged citizens not to panic but to remain vigilant. The potential risk stems from missile debris possibly falling in or around civilian areas due to the mid-air interceptions. In a gesture acknowledging the disruption caused by the attack, Qatar also announced the waiver of all traffic violations recorded on the day of the missile strike. This move is intended to alleviate additional stress for motorists affected during the event.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US Birthright citizenship: According to legal experts, the ramifications of Supreme Court's order curtailing power of district courts to issue nation-wide injunctions are onerous
Representative image (Picture credit: AP) In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AudioNova leder efter testpersoner i Aarhus til at teste det usynlige høreapparat Audionova Lær mere Undo Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Citizenship by birth curtailed even for legal immigrants; over 1 million Indians in green card queue impacted Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben Johnson , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
