Current Affairs: 22nd Sept 2025

• One-time H-1B visa fee is only for new applicants, says U.S.

Context: White House clarifies that the fee will not be applicable for current visa holders; announcement eases fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States.

• A day after U.S. President Donald Trump hiked H-1B visa fees to $100,000, the White House clarified that the fee will not be an annual feature, but rather a “one-time” payment that will have to be made by companies for fresh H-1B visa applicants, starting with the “next upcoming lottery cycle”.
• The announcement eased the fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States by Indian H-1B visa holders currently outside the country, after U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s earlier remarks indicating that the fee would have to be paid every year.
• However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt contradicted Mr. Lutnick in a social media post early on Sunday.
• “To be clear: This is not an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition. Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged $100,000 to re-enter. H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would: whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday’s proclamation,” the Press Secretary said.
• “This applies only to new visas, not renewals and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle,” Ms. Leavitt added, clarifying the way the proclamation will be implemented.

Lutnick’s remarks

• During the signing of the presidential proclamation by Mr. Trump, Mr. Lutnick had said, “No more will these big tech companies or other companies train foreign workers. They have to pay the government a hundred thousand dollars and then they have to pay the employee.
• So it’s just non-economical. If you are going to train somebody, you are going to train one of the recent graduates from one of the great universities across our land.” He added, “A hundred thousand dollars a year for H-1B visas and all of the big companies are onboard.”

Rush for tickets

• In its first response on September 20, the Ministry of External Affairs had cautioned that the order would have “humanitarian consequences” due to family disruptions. Soon after the proclamation, several corporate giants, including Microsoft, JPMorgan and Amazon, instructed their H-1B visa holding employees who were outside the U.S. to return before midnight on Saturday and others to remain in the U.S.
• Mr. Lutnick’s remarks at the signing ceremony created a rush among H-1B visa holders for last minute purchases of air tickets. The Hindu reported on Sunday that travel agents observed a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the U.S. on Saturday as H-1B visa holders attempted to reach the U.S. ahead of the September 20-21 midnight deadline when the proclamation came into effect. Officials also observed the spike in last-minute flight bookings, following which the Indian government instructed its missions and embassies across the world to provide “all possible help” to Indians trying to return to the U.S. before the deadline.

• IAF’s iconic MiG-21 fighter to fly intosunset after six decades of service

Context: The Indian Air Force will officially retire its legendary MiG-21 fighter jets on September 26, marking the end of nearly six decades of service for the aircraft widely hailed as the “workhorse” of India’s air defence.

• A ceremonial flypast and decommissioning event will be held at the IAF base in Chandigarh and will be attended by senior military leaders and veteran pilots who have flown the jet across generations.

• Inducted in 1963, the MiG-21 was India’s first supersonic fighter, with its maiden squadron — the 28 Squadron at Chandigarh — earning the nickname ‘First Supersonics’. Over the years, India inducted more than 700 MiG-21s of different variants, many built domestically by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
• The aircraft was the backbone of the IAF till the mid-2000s, playing crucial roles in the 1965 and 1971 wars, the 1999 Kargil conflict, the 2019 Balakot air strikes, and most recently Operation Sindoor. It was in a MiG-21 that Group Captain Abhinandan Varthaman (then Wing Commander) shot down a Pakistani F-16 in 2019 before being captured across the border.
• Besides combat successes, the MiG-21 also boosted India’s aerospace industry, pushing indigenous manufacturing and technological capabilities to new levels.

• As the MiG-21 squadrons are phased out, the IAF’s combat strength will dip to 29 squadrons. However, senior officers have hinted that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft Mk 1A will step in to replace the ageing fighter in the years to come.

• Embassy flags cases of illegal migration by Indian nationals

Context: The Embassy of India in Guatemala has flagged the problem of Indian nationals illegally entering Central American countries to migrate to Mexico and subsequently to the United States.

• Responding to a set of queries raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Embassy said the illegal entry of Indian nationals to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras as a pathway to the United States had been a “complex issue”.
• Whenever migrants without a visa or proof of legal entry to Guatemala are arrested by the local police, the Embassy officials help the distressed Indians, providing interpretation and taking care of their well-being, the Public Information Officer (PIO) said.

Illegal entry

• The Embassy did not provide specific figures in response to the RTI query about the number of Indians deported from various prisons and detention centres in Central America and the steps taken by the Embassy against human trafficking from India to Central America.
• The PIO said that one Indian was held in a Guatemala detention centre for eight years on charges of human trafficking. He was released after the Embassy’s intervention and sent back to India in September 2022. Another Indian was arrested in March 2023 for entering El Salvador illegally en route to the United States. The Embassy took steps for his release and deportation to India in June 2023.
• An Indian had died on the Guatemalan border on March 8, 2023, while on his way to enter the U.S. illegally, and was buried by the local authority as an anonymous body. On receiving information from his family in India, his body was exhumed in coordination with the local government and the mortal remains were sent to his family in July 2023 for cremation as per religious rituals.
• Saying there was no shelter operated by the Embassy of India in Guatemala, the PIO said that the mission opened in 2011 with very few consular services provided.
• In 2023, the Embassy organised over 100 cultural and commercial events across Guatemala.

• U.K., Australia and Canada recognise Palestinian state in a seismic shift

Context: Britain, Australia and Canada recognised a Palestinian state in a seismic shift in decades of western foreign policy, triggering swift Israeli anger.

• Portugal was also to recognise Palestinian statehood later on Sunday, as Israel came under huge international pressure over the war in Gaza triggered almost two years ago by the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack.
• “Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognises the State of Palestine,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a message on X.
• Britain and Canada became the first G-7 countries to take the step, with France and other nations expected to follow at the annual UN General Assembly which opens on Monday in New York.
• “Canada recognises the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote on X.
• It is a watershed moment for Palestinians and their decades-long ambitions for statehood.
• But the move puts those countries at odds with the U.S. and Israel, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacting angrily and vowing to oppose it at the UN talks.
• Calls for a Palestinian state “would endanger our existence and serve as absurd reward for terrorism,” Mr. Netanyahu said on Sunday.
• Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged at the UN in July that “Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution”.
• Over a century ago, the U.K. was pivotal in laying the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel through the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

• Can timelines be fixed for Governors?

Context: The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025 that has sought the opinion of the Court on 14 questions, primarily surrounding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

What is the current reference?

• The current reference is a result of a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr) that had specified timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It had held that if the Governor was to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, he/she should do so within a period of three months. It further held that if a Bill for which assent has been withheld is again passed by the State legislature, the Governor shall assent to such Bill. It had prescribed a timeline of three months for the President to decide on State Bills reserved for his/her consideration. The court had also held that decisions by Governors and the President on such Bills, including delays beyond the prescribed timelines, will be subject to judicial review.
• The government has raised questions regarding the authority of the Court to prescribe timelines when they are not specified in the Constitution.

What does the Constitution say?

• Article 200 of the Constitution lays down that when a Bill, passed by a State Legislature, is presented to the Governor for his/her assent, he/she has four alternatives: (a) may give assent to the Bill (b) may withhold assent to the Bill, that is, reject the Bill in which case the Bill fails to become law; (c) may return the Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature; or (d) may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• As held by the Supreme Court in various cases including the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the Governor does not exercise his/her discretionary powers while withholding assent for a Bill. He/she is required to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers. The return of any Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration is also to be done based on ministerial advice. As explained in the Constituent Assembly by T.T. Krishnamachari, this may be done if the Government feels that the Bill needs modifications. The Governor shall assent to such a Bill if it is passed again by the State Legislature.
• As far as reserving any Bill for consideration of the President, the Governor must reserve certain Bills like those which reduce the powers of the High Court. He/she may reserve certain Bills based on the advice of the Council of Ministers like those that relate to a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, to ensure operation of its provisions despite repugnancy to a Union Law. It is only under rare circumstances that the Governor may exercise his/her discretion and reserve a Bill where he/she feels that the provisions of the Bill contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and therefore, reserve it for the consideration of the President.
• The Constitution does not lay down any time limit within which the Governor is required to make a decision with respect to any Bill presented for his/her assent. The main part of Article 200 states that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he/she ‘shall’ declare that he/she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to the article adds that the Governor may ‘as soon as possible’ return the Bill for reconsideration of the State legislature.

What are the recommendations?

• The Sarkaria Commission (1987) had stated that only the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too under rare cases of patent unconstitutionality, can be implied as a discretionary power of the Governor. Apart from such exceptional cases, the Governor must discharge his functions under Article 200 as per the advice of Ministers. It further recommended that the President (Central Government) should dispose of such Bills within a maximum period of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) had recommended that the Governor should take a decision with respect to a Bill presented for his/her assent within a period of six months.

What are the arguments?

• Article 163(1) of the Constitution requires the Governor to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers except in so far as he/she is required by or under the Constitution to act as per his/her discretion. Article 163(2) further provides that if any question arises on whether the matter is a matter which the Governor is required to act as per his/her discretion, the decision of the Governor in such cases shall be final and shall not be called into question.
• The Centre has argued that the Governor enjoys discretion as per the above Article which cannot be inquired into by the courts and consequently no timelines can be fixed. It also raised objections to the three-month timeframe that has been stipulated for the President to decide on Bills which have been reserved. Article 201 that deals with this matter does not stipulate any timeline. The Centre has maintained that any issues between the elected government in a State, the Governor and the President need to be resolved politically within the framework of the Constitution and that the courts cannot be an adjudicator for every such impasse.
• However, Opposition-ruled States have argued that the Governors in such States have been selectively delaying assent or reserving Bills, against the advice of the Council of Ministers, for the consideration of the President. They have argued that such deliberate delays cannot be termed as discretion and that it disrespects the popular mandate of the people of the State.

What should be the way forward?

• All the issues stated above are in the nature of symptoms. The underlying disease that has plagued our federal set up has been the politicisation of the gubernatorial post. Many political leaders starting from C.N. Annadurai to Nitish Kumar have called for the abolition of the Governor’s post in the past. However, as per our Constitutional scheme, there is a need for a nominal head of the State executive just like the President for the Union executive.
• Nevertheless, federalism is also a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of popularly elected governments at the States.
• The Court usually exercises restraint while stipulating timelines for action by constitutional authorities where none is provided in the Constitution. However, when there are unreasonable delays, the Court has stipulated timelines in the past like in K. M. Singh case (2020) where it laid down a three-month timeframe for Speakers to decide on the Tenth Schedule disqualification.
• The Supreme Court has purposively interpreted the words in Article 200 in its judgment in April 2025. It has interpreted that the main part of Article 200 uses the words ‘Governor shall’ and hence it is not a discretionary power. It relied on its own past judgments including the Nabam Rebia case (2006), the recommendations of various commissions as well as the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry in 2016 to prescribe the timeline of three months for actions by Governors and the President.

The Centre and the Governors should follow the timeline prescribed by the April 2025 judgment to uphold democratic and federal principles. Hopefully, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Presidential One-time H-1B visa fee is only for new applicants, says U.S.

Context: White House clarifies that the fee will not be applicable for current visa holders; announcement eases fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States.

• A day after U.S. President Donald Trump hiked H-1B visa fees to $100,000, the White House clarified that the fee will not be an annual feature, but rather a “one-time” payment that will have to be made by companies for fresh H-1B visa applicants, starting with the “next upcoming lottery cycle”.
• The announcement eased the fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States by Indian H-1B visa holders currently outside the country, after U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s earlier remarks indicating that the fee would have to be paid every year.
• However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt contradicted Mr. Lutnick in a social media post early on Sunday.
• “To be clear: This is not an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition. Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged $100,000 to re-enter. H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would: whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday’s proclamation,” the Press Secretary said.
• “This applies only to new visas, not renewals and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle,” Ms. Leavitt added, clarifying the way the proclamation will be implemented.

Lutnick’s remarks

• During the signing of the presidential proclamation by Mr. Trump, Mr. Lutnick had said, “No more will these big tech companies or other companies train foreign workers. They have to pay the government a hundred thousand dollars and then they have to pay the employee.
• So it’s just non-economical. If you are going to train somebody, you are going to train one of the recent graduates from one of the great universities across our land.” He added, “A hundred thousand dollars a year for H-1B visas and all of the big companies are onboard.”

Rush for tickets

• In its first response on September 20, the Ministry of External Affairs had cautioned that the order would have “humanitarian consequences” due to family disruptions. Soon after the proclamation, several corporate giants, including Microsoft, JPMorgan and Amazon, instructed their H-1B visa holding employees who were outside the U.S. to return before midnight on Saturday and others to remain in the U.S.
• Mr. Lutnick’s remarks at the signing ceremony created a rush among H-1B visa holders for last minute purchases of air tickets. The Hindu reported on Sunday that travel agents observed a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the U.S. on Saturday as H-1B visa holders attempted to reach the U.S. ahead of the September 20-21 midnight deadline when the proclamation came into effect. Officials also observed the spike in last-minute flight bookings, following which the Indian government instructed its missions and embassies across the world to provide “all possible help” to Indians trying to return to the U.S. before the deadline.

• IAF’s iconic MiG-21 fighter to fly intosunset after six decades of service

Context: The Indian Air Force will officially retire its legendary MiG-21 fighter jets on September 26, marking the end of nearly six decades of service for the aircraft widely hailed as the “workhorse” of India’s air defence.

• A ceremonial flypast and decommissioning event will be held at the IAF base in Chandigarh and will be attended by senior military leaders and veteran pilots who have flown the jet across generations.

• Inducted in 1963, the MiG-21 was India’s first supersonic fighter, with its maiden squadron — the 28 Squadron at Chandigarh — earning the nickname ‘First Supersonics’. Over the years, India inducted more than 700 MiG-21s of different variants, many built domestically by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
• The aircraft was the backbone of the IAF till the mid-2000s, playing crucial roles in the 1965 and 1971 wars, the 1999 Kargil conflict, the 2019 Balakot air strikes, and most recently Operation Sindoor. It was in a MiG-21 that Group Captain Abhinandan Varthaman (then Wing Commander) shot down a Pakistani F-16 in 2019 before being captured across the border.
• Besides combat successes, the MiG-21 also boosted India’s aerospace industry, pushing indigenous manufacturing and technological capabilities to new levels.

• As the MiG-21 squadrons are phased out, the IAF’s combat strength will dip to 29 squadrons. However, senior officers have hinted that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft Mk 1A will step in to replace the ageing fighter in the years to come.

• Embassy flags cases of illegal migration by Indian nationals

Context: The Embassy of India in Guatemala has flagged the problem of Indian nationals illegally entering Central American countries to migrate to Mexico and subsequently to the United States.

• Responding to a set of queries raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Embassy said the illegal entry of Indian nationals to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras as a pathway to the United States had been a “complex issue”.
• Whenever migrants without a visa or proof of legal entry to Guatemala are arrested by the local police, the Embassy officials help the distressed Indians, providing interpretation and taking care of their well-being, the Public Information Officer (PIO) said.

Illegal entry

• The Embassy did not provide specific figures in response to the RTI query about the number of Indians deported from various prisons and detention centres in Central America and the steps taken by the Embassy against human trafficking from India to Central America.
• The PIO said that one Indian was held in a Guatemala detention centre for eight years on charges of human trafficking. He was released after the Embassy’s intervention and sent back to India in September 2022. Another Indian was arrested in March 2023 for entering El Salvador illegally en route to the United States. The Embassy took steps for his release and deportation to India in June 2023.
• An Indian had died on the Guatemalan border on March 8, 2023, while on his way to enter the U.S. illegally, and was buried by the local authority as an anonymous body. On receiving information from his family in India, his body was exhumed in coordination with the local government and the mortal remains were sent to his family in July 2023 for cremation as per religious rituals.
• Saying there was no shelter operated by the Embassy of India in Guatemala, the PIO said that the mission opened in 2011 with very few consular services provided.
• In 2023, the Embassy organised over 100 cultural and commercial events across Guatemala.

• U.K., Australia and Canada recognise Palestinian state in a seismic shift

Context: Britain, Australia and Canada recognised a Palestinian state in a seismic shift in decades of western foreign policy, triggering swift Israeli anger.

• Portugal was also to recognise Palestinian statehood later on Sunday, as Israel came under huge international pressure over the war in Gaza triggered almost two years ago by the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack.
• “Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognises the State of Palestine,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a message on X.
• Britain and Canada became the first G-7 countries to take the step, with France and other nations expected to follow at the annual UN General Assembly which opens on Monday in New York.
• “Canada recognises the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote on X.
• It is a watershed moment for Palestinians and their decades-long ambitions for statehood.
• But the move puts those countries at odds with the U.S. and Israel, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacting angrily and vowing to oppose it at the UN talks.
• Calls for a Palestinian state “would endanger our existence and serve as absurd reward for terrorism,” Mr. Netanyahu said on Sunday.
• Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged at the UN in July that “Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution”.
• Over a century ago, the U.K. was pivotal in laying the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel through the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

• Can timelines be fixed for Governors?

Context: The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025 that has sought the opinion of the Court on 14 questions, primarily surrounding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

What is the current reference?

• The current reference is a result of a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr) that had specified timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It had held that if the Governor was to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, he/she should do so within a period of three months. It further held that if a Bill for which assent has been withheld is again passed by the State legislature, the Governor shall assent to such Bill. It had prescribed a timeline of three months for the President to decide on State Bills reserved for his/her consideration. The court had also held that decisions by Governors and the President on such Bills, including delays beyond the prescribed timelines, will be subject to judicial review.
• The government has raised questions regarding the authority of the Court to prescribe timelines when they are not specified in the Constitution.

What does the Constitution say?

• Article 200 of the Constitution lays down that when a Bill, passed by a State Legislature, is presented to the Governor for his/her assent, he/she has four alternatives: (a) may give assent to the Bill (b) may withhold assent to the Bill, that is, reject the Bill in which case the Bill fails to become law; (c) may return the Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature; or (d) may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• As held by the Supreme Court in various cases including the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the Governor does not exercise his/her discretionary powers while withholding assent for a Bill. He/she is required to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers. The return of any Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration is also to be done based on ministerial advice. As explained in the Constituent Assembly by T.T. Krishnamachari, this may be done if the Government feels that the Bill needs modifications. The Governor shall assent to such a Bill if it is passed again by the State Legislature.
• As far as reserving any Bill for consideration of the President, the Governor must reserve certain Bills like those which reduce the powers of the High Court. He/she may reserve certain Bills based on the advice of the Council of Ministers like those that relate to a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, to ensure operation of its provisions despite repugnancy to a Union Law. It is only under rare circumstances that the Governor may exercise his/her discretion and reserve a Bill where he/she feels that the provisions of the Bill contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and therefore, reserve it for the consideration of the President.
• The Constitution does not lay down any time limit within which the Governor is required to make a decision with respect to any Bill presented for his/her assent. The main part of Article 200 states that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he/she ‘shall’ declare that he/she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to the article adds that the Governor may ‘as soon as possible’ return the Bill for reconsideration of the State legislature.

What are the recommendations?

• The Sarkaria Commission (1987) had stated that only the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too under rare cases of patent unconstitutionality, can be implied as a discretionary power of the Governor. Apart from such exceptional cases, the Governor must discharge his functions under Article 200 as per the advice of Ministers. It further recommended that the President (Central Government) should dispose of such Bills within a maximum period of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) had recommended that the Governor should take a decision with respect to a Bill presented for his/her assent within a period of six months.

What are the arguments?

• Article 163(1) of the Constitution requires the Governor to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers except in so far as he/she is required by or under the Constitution to act as per his/her discretion. Article 163(2) further provides that if any question arises on whether the matter is a matter which the Governor is required to act as per his/her discretion, the decision of the Governor in such cases shall be final and shall not be called into question.
• The Centre has argued that the Governor enjoys discretion as per the above Article which cannot be inquired into by the courts and consequently no timelines can be fixed. It also raised objections to the three-month timeframe that has been stipulated for the President to decide on Bills which have been reserved. Article 201 that deals with this matter does not stipulate any timeline. The Centre has maintained that any issues between the elected government in a State, the Governor and the President need to be resolved politically within the framework of the Constitution and that the courts cannot be an adjudicator for every such impasse.
• However, Opposition-ruled States have argued that the Governors in such States have been selectively delaying assent or reserving Bills, against the advice of the Council of Ministers, for the consideration of the President. They have argued that such deliberate delays cannot be termed as discretion and that it disrespects the popular mandate of the people of the State.

What should be the way forward?

• All the issues stated above are in the nature of symptoms. The underlying disease that has plagued our federal set up has been the politicisation of the gubernatorial post. Many political leaders starting from C.N. Annadurai to Nitish Kumar have called for the abolition of the Governor’s post in the past. However, as per our Constitutional scheme, there is a need for a nominal head of the State executive just like the President for the Union executive.
• Nevertheless, federalism is also a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of popularly elected governments at the States.
• The Court usually exercises restraint while stipulating timelines for action by constitutional authorities where none is provided in the Constitution. However, when there are unreasonable delays, the Court has stipulated timelines in the past like in K. M. Singh case (2020) where it laid down a three-month timeframe for Speakers to decide on the Tenth Schedule disqualification.
• The Supreme Court has purposively interpreted the words in Article 200 in its judgment in April 2025. It has interpreted that the main part of Article 200 uses the words ‘Governor shall’ and hence it is not a discretionary power. It relied on its own past judgments including the Nabam Rebia case (2006), the recommendations of various commissions as well as the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry in 2016 to prescribe the timeline of three months for actions by Governors and the President.

The Centre and the Governors should follow the timeline prescribed by the April 2025 judgment to uphold democratic and federal principles. Hopefully, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Presidential One-time H-1B visa fee is only for new applicants, says U.S.

Context: White House clarifies that the fee will not be applicable for current visa holders; announcement eases fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States.

• A day after U.S. President Donald Trump hiked H-1B visa fees to $100,000, the White House clarified that the fee will not be an annual feature, but rather a “one-time” payment that will have to be made by companies for fresh H-1B visa applicants, starting with the “next upcoming lottery cycle”.
• The announcement eased the fears that had triggered a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the United States by Indian H-1B visa holders currently outside the country, after U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s earlier remarks indicating that the fee would have to be paid every year.
• However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt contradicted Mr. Lutnick in a social media post early on Sunday.
• “To be clear: This is not an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition. Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will not be charged $100,000 to re-enter. H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would: whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday’s proclamation,” the Press Secretary said.
• “This applies only to new visas, not renewals and not current visa holders. It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle,” Ms. Leavitt added, clarifying the way the proclamation will be implemented.

Lutnick’s remarks

• During the signing of the presidential proclamation by Mr. Trump, Mr. Lutnick had said, “No more will these big tech companies or other companies train foreign workers. They have to pay the government a hundred thousand dollars and then they have to pay the employee.
• So it’s just non-economical. If you are going to train somebody, you are going to train one of the recent graduates from one of the great universities across our land.” He added, “A hundred thousand dollars a year for H-1B visas and all of the big companies are onboard.”

Rush for tickets

• In its first response on September 20, the Ministry of External Affairs had cautioned that the order would have “humanitarian consequences” due to family disruptions. Soon after the proclamation, several corporate giants, including Microsoft, JPMorgan and Amazon, instructed their H-1B visa holding employees who were outside the U.S. to return before midnight on Saturday and others to remain in the U.S.
• Mr. Lutnick’s remarks at the signing ceremony created a rush among H-1B visa holders for last minute purchases of air tickets. The Hindu reported on Sunday that travel agents observed a surge in last-minute flight bookings to the U.S. on Saturday as H-1B visa holders attempted to reach the U.S. ahead of the September 20-21 midnight deadline when the proclamation came into effect. Officials also observed the spike in last-minute flight bookings, following which the Indian government instructed its missions and embassies across the world to provide “all possible help” to Indians trying to return to the U.S. before the deadline.

• IAF’s iconic MiG-21 fighter to fly intosunset after six decades of service

Context: The Indian Air Force will officially retire its legendary MiG-21 fighter jets on September 26, marking the end of nearly six decades of service for the aircraft widely hailed as the “workhorse” of India’s air defence.

• A ceremonial flypast and decommissioning event will be held at the IAF base in Chandigarh and will be attended by senior military leaders and veteran pilots who have flown the jet across generations.

• Inducted in 1963, the MiG-21 was India’s first supersonic fighter, with its maiden squadron — the 28 Squadron at Chandigarh — earning the nickname ‘First Supersonics’. Over the years, India inducted more than 700 MiG-21s of different variants, many built domestically by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
• The aircraft was the backbone of the IAF till the mid-2000s, playing crucial roles in the 1965 and 1971 wars, the 1999 Kargil conflict, the 2019 Balakot air strikes, and most recently Operation Sindoor. It was in a MiG-21 that Group Captain Abhinandan Varthaman (then Wing Commander) shot down a Pakistani F-16 in 2019 before being captured across the border.
• Besides combat successes, the MiG-21 also boosted India’s aerospace industry, pushing indigenous manufacturing and technological capabilities to new levels.

• As the MiG-21 squadrons are phased out, the IAF’s combat strength will dip to 29 squadrons. However, senior officers have hinted that the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft Mk 1A will step in to replace the ageing fighter in the years to come.

• Embassy flags cases of illegal migration by Indian nationals

Context: The Embassy of India in Guatemala has flagged the problem of Indian nationals illegally entering Central American countries to migrate to Mexico and subsequently to the United States.

• Responding to a set of queries raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Embassy said the illegal entry of Indian nationals to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras as a pathway to the United States had been a “complex issue”.
• Whenever migrants without a visa or proof of legal entry to Guatemala are arrested by the local police, the Embassy officials help the distressed Indians, providing interpretation and taking care of their well-being, the Public Information Officer (PIO) said.

Illegal entry

• The Embassy did not provide specific figures in response to the RTI query about the number of Indians deported from various prisons and detention centres in Central America and the steps taken by the Embassy against human trafficking from India to Central America.
• The PIO said that one Indian was held in a Guatemala detention centre for eight years on charges of human trafficking. He was released after the Embassy’s intervention and sent back to India in September 2022. Another Indian was arrested in March 2023 for entering El Salvador illegally en route to the United States. The Embassy took steps for his release and deportation to India in June 2023.
• An Indian had died on the Guatemalan border on March 8, 2023, while on his way to enter the U.S. illegally, and was buried by the local authority as an anonymous body. On receiving information from his family in India, his body was exhumed in coordination with the local government and the mortal remains were sent to his family in July 2023 for cremation as per religious rituals.
• Saying there was no shelter operated by the Embassy of India in Guatemala, the PIO said that the mission opened in 2011 with very few consular services provided.
• In 2023, the Embassy organised over 100 cultural and commercial events across Guatemala.

• U.K., Australia and Canada recognise Palestinian state in a seismic shift

Context: Britain, Australia and Canada recognised a Palestinian state in a seismic shift in decades of western foreign policy, triggering swift Israeli anger.

• Portugal was also to recognise Palestinian statehood later on Sunday, as Israel came under huge international pressure over the war in Gaza triggered almost two years ago by the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack.
• “Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognises the State of Palestine,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a message on X.
• Britain and Canada became the first G-7 countries to take the step, with France and other nations expected to follow at the annual UN General Assembly which opens on Monday in New York.
• “Canada recognises the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote on X.
• It is a watershed moment for Palestinians and their decades-long ambitions for statehood.
• But the move puts those countries at odds with the U.S. and Israel, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacting angrily and vowing to oppose it at the UN talks.
• Calls for a Palestinian state “would endanger our existence and serve as absurd reward for terrorism,” Mr. Netanyahu said on Sunday.
• Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged at the UN in July that “Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution”.
• Over a century ago, the U.K. was pivotal in laying the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel through the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

• Can timelines be fixed for Governors?

Context: The Supreme Court is currently hearing a Presidential reference made in May 2025 that has sought the opinion of the Court on 14 questions, primarily surrounding the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

What is the current reference?

• The current reference is a result of a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025 (The State of Tamil Nadu versus the Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr) that had specified timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures. It had held that if the Governor was to withhold assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President, contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, he/she should do so within a period of three months. It further held that if a Bill for which assent has been withheld is again passed by the State legislature, the Governor shall assent to such Bill. It had prescribed a timeline of three months for the President to decide on State Bills reserved for his/her consideration. The court had also held that decisions by Governors and the President on such Bills, including delays beyond the prescribed timelines, will be subject to judicial review.
• The government has raised questions regarding the authority of the Court to prescribe timelines when they are not specified in the Constitution.

What does the Constitution say?

• Article 200 of the Constitution lays down that when a Bill, passed by a State Legislature, is presented to the Governor for his/her assent, he/she has four alternatives: (a) may give assent to the Bill (b) may withhold assent to the Bill, that is, reject the Bill in which case the Bill fails to become law; (c) may return the Bill for reconsideration of the State Legislature; or (d) may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
• As held by the Supreme Court in various cases including the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the Governor does not exercise his/her discretionary powers while withholding assent for a Bill. He/she is required to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers. The return of any Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration is also to be done based on ministerial advice. As explained in the Constituent Assembly by T.T. Krishnamachari, this may be done if the Government feels that the Bill needs modifications. The Governor shall assent to such a Bill if it is passed again by the State Legislature.
• As far as reserving any Bill for consideration of the President, the Governor must reserve certain Bills like those which reduce the powers of the High Court. He/she may reserve certain Bills based on the advice of the Council of Ministers like those that relate to a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, to ensure operation of its provisions despite repugnancy to a Union Law. It is only under rare circumstances that the Governor may exercise his/her discretion and reserve a Bill where he/she feels that the provisions of the Bill contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution and therefore, reserve it for the consideration of the President.
• The Constitution does not lay down any time limit within which the Governor is required to make a decision with respect to any Bill presented for his/her assent. The main part of Article 200 states that once a Bill is presented to the Governor, he/she ‘shall’ declare that he/she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or reserves the Bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to the article adds that the Governor may ‘as soon as possible’ return the Bill for reconsideration of the State legislature.

What are the recommendations?

• The Sarkaria Commission (1987) had stated that only the reservation of Bills for consideration of the President, that too under rare cases of patent unconstitutionality, can be implied as a discretionary power of the Governor. Apart from such exceptional cases, the Governor must discharge his functions under Article 200 as per the advice of Ministers. It further recommended that the President (Central Government) should dispose of such Bills within a maximum period of six months. The Punchhi Commission (2010) had recommended that the Governor should take a decision with respect to a Bill presented for his/her assent within a period of six months.

What are the arguments?

• Article 163(1) of the Constitution requires the Governor to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers except in so far as he/she is required by or under the Constitution to act as per his/her discretion. Article 163(2) further provides that if any question arises on whether the matter is a matter which the Governor is required to act as per his/her discretion, the decision of the Governor in such cases shall be final and shall not be called into question.
• The Centre has argued that the Governor enjoys discretion as per the above Article which cannot be inquired into by the courts and consequently no timelines can be fixed. It also raised objections to the three-month timeframe that has been stipulated for the President to decide on Bills which have been reserved. Article 201 that deals with this matter does not stipulate any timeline. The Centre has maintained that any issues between the elected government in a State, the Governor and the President need to be resolved politically within the framework of the Constitution and that the courts cannot be an adjudicator for every such impasse.
• However, Opposition-ruled States have argued that the Governors in such States have been selectively delaying assent or reserving Bills, against the advice of the Council of Ministers, for the consideration of the President. They have argued that such deliberate delays cannot be termed as discretion and that it disrespects the popular mandate of the people of the State.

What should be the way forward?

• All the issues stated above are in the nature of symptoms. The underlying disease that has plagued our federal set up has been the politicisation of the gubernatorial post. Many political leaders starting from C.N. Annadurai to Nitish Kumar have called for the abolition of the Governor’s post in the past. However, as per our Constitutional scheme, there is a need for a nominal head of the State executive just like the President for the Union executive.
• Nevertheless, federalism is also a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of popularly elected governments at the States.
• The Court usually exercises restraint while stipulating timelines for action by constitutional authorities where none is provided in the Constitution. However, when there are unreasonable delays, the Court has stipulated timelines in the past like in K. M. Singh case (2020) where it laid down a three-month timeframe for Speakers to decide on the Tenth Schedule disqualification.
• The Supreme Court has purposively interpreted the words in Article 200 in its judgment in April 2025. It has interpreted that the main part of Article 200 uses the words ‘Governor shall’ and hence it is not a discretionary power. It relied on its own past judgments including the Nabam Rebia case (2006), the recommendations of various commissions as well as the Office Memorandum of the Home Ministry in 2016 to prescribe the timeline of three months for actions by Governors and the President.

The Centre and the Governors should follow the timeline prescribed by the April 2025 judgment to uphold democratic and federal principles. Hopefully, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Presidential reference would also reiterate this position.