Narendra Modi a marketing man, can even lay claim to Taj Mahal: Akhilesh Yadav

New Delhi, May 12: With 3,604 more COVID-19 cases reported in the last 24 hours, India's tally of coronavirus cases reached 70,756, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Tuesday. 87 deaths were reported during the period.

As per the tally, 46,008 patients are active coronavirus cases while 22,454 patients have been cured/discharged and one patient has migrated.

With 87 deaths due to COVID-19 reported in the last 24 hours, the number of deaths has risen to 2,293.

As per the ministry, Maharashtra has the most number of coronavirus cases with 23,401 cases with 4,786 patients being cured/discharged while 868 deaths have been reported in the state.

Gujarat is second on the list with 8,541 cases that include 2,780 patients recovering from the disease and 513 fatalities.

Tamil Nadu's tally reached 8,002 cases, including 2,051 recoveries and 53 deaths.

While Delhi's tally stands at 7,233 cases with 2,129 patients recovered and 73 deaths.

Meanwhile; Mizoram (one case reported--now recovered), Goa (seven cases reported and all seven recovered), Manipur (Two cases reported and both patients recovered) and Arunachal Pradesh (one case reported--now recovered) have reported no new cases in the last 24 hours.

Lucknow , May 13: Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday took a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over announcing Rs 20 lakh crore special economic package to boost the economy saying that the Centre is again making "false promises to 133 crore Indians".

"Earlier, you promised Rs 15 lakh and now Rs 20 lakh crore. You have made false promises 133 times with 133 crore Indians. How can someone trust you this time? People now are not asking how many zeroes there are but how many false promises have been made," he tweeted (translated from Hindi).

Yesterday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced a Rs 20 lakh crore economic stimulus package for the country fighting COVID-19, stating that it will give a new impetus and a new direction to the self-reliant India campaign.

The Prime Minister had also announced that the fourth phase of lockdown will be completely redesigned with new rules and will commence from May 18.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.