Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has questioned the Centre after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) did not invoke provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in its chargesheet against US national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals.

Ramesh alleged that the decision may have followed pressure from the United States and demanded an explanation from the Narendra Modi government. He described the development as “bullying” in a post on X. 

The NIA filed its chargesheet on September 8 before a special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts. Instead of UAPA provisions, the agency has invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act in the present chargesheet. The matter is scheduled for consideration before Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma on October 1. 

Jairam Ramesh Questions Centre’s Decision

Reacting to the development, Ramesh questioned whether the NIA had dropped the UAPA provisions after completing its investigation or whether the agency had been pressured to do so.

He specifically linked the decision to possible intervention by US authorities and asked what India expected in return. His remarks represent the Congress leader’s political allegation; there is no independent evidence establishing that the US government pressured the NIA to alter the chargesheet. 

The Congress has therefore turned the legal development into a political issue, particularly because the case initially involved serious national-security allegations.

What the NIA Has Charged

The latest chargesheet represents a significant change from the provisions under which the case was initially registered.

The case was originally registered in March under Section 18 of the UAPA, relating to conspiracy and attempts connected with terrorist activities, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. However, the September 8 chargesheet does not presently contain UAPA offences.

Instead, the NIA has proceeded under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, focusing on alleged violations relating to the entry, movement and stay of foreign nationals in India.

The agency's special public prosecutor has said the investigation is continuing. If further evidence establishes offences under the UAPA, the NIA could file a supplementary chargesheet. (The News Mill)

VanDyke and Six Ukrainians Arrested in March

VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals were arrested in March 2026 as part of an investigation into their alleged movements between India and Myanmar.

The accused Ukrainians have been identified as Petro Hurba, Taras Slyviak, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Marian Stefankiv, Maksim Honcharuk and Viktor Kaminskyi. 

Earlier court proceedings recorded allegations that the foreign nationals travelled through India's Northeast and were linked to activities involving ethnic armed organisations in Myanmar. The NIA had also alleged that the group was involved in providing weapons-related or military training and other support.

Those allegations remain allegations and have not been established as facts by a court.

Why the UAPA Decision Matters

The UAPA is India's principal anti-terror legislation and carries significantly more serious legal consequences than ordinary immigration-related offences.

The decision not to include UAPA sections in the current chargesheet therefore changes the immediate legal character of the case. However, it does not amount to an acquittal or a judicial declaration that the original allegations were false.

The NIA has specifically retained the possibility of further legal action if its continuing investigation produces evidence supporting additional offences. 

Family Had Sought US Intervention

Before the chargesheet was filed, an X account purportedly operated by VanDyke's family had appealed for US diplomatic intervention.

The family alleged that VanDyke was being denied basic detainee rights and was being held in solitary confinement at Tihar Jail. It also maintained that he was innocent and described his previous work as involving documentation of humanitarian crises and assistance to people affected by conflict. (The News Mill)

These claims have not been independently established in the current proceedings.

Investigation Still Open

The NIA's latest filing does not close the wider investigation. The agency has indicated that additional evidence could lead to a supplementary chargesheet, including possible UAPA offences.

For the Congress, however, the change in charges has raised questions about the government's handling of a case that initially carried national-security and terrorism allegations.

The court will now examine the chargesheet and the evidence placed before it. Until judicial findings are made, the allegations against VanDyke and the six Ukrainian nationals remain subject to the legal process.

Jairam Ramesh Flags Worker Protection Concerns Over SC Industry Test

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh has raised concerns over the Supreme Court's August 20, 2026 judgment on the legal definition of an “industry”, warning that the new interpretation could create uncertainty in labour disputes and potentially weaken worker protections. In a post on X, Ramesh described the possibility of an “interpretive vacuum” that could lead to prolonged litigation before Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. 

The issue stems from the Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, delivered its verdict by a 6:3 majority and examined the “Triple Test” laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa case. The earlier test broadly considered whether an activity involved systematic operations, cooperation between employers and employees, and the production or distribution of goods or services intended to meet human needs. 

Ramesh argued that the latest judgment introduces an additional requirement by indicating that an activity should have a “discernible commercial character” resembling trade or business. He also pointed to what he described as a broader interpretation of the exemption for sovereign functions. According to Ramesh, these changes could have implications for the range of establishments and activities whose workers receive protection under labour laws. He said the development was particularly concerning because the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 already gives the Central Government powers to exclude additional categories of establishments from its scope. 

What the Supreme Court Held

The majority held that while the core framework of the 1978 judgment had remained relevant, aspects of the Triple Test required refinement. The court also clarified that the reformulated approach would operate prospectively. Pending or concluded proceedings under the erstwhile Industrial Disputes Act would not be disturbed, while the 1978 judgment would not serve as the controlling basis for interpreting the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Justices BV Nagarathna, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dissented from the majority view. 

The interpretation of “industry” is important because it affects the legal framework governing industrial disputes and, consequently, which workers can claim protections available under labour legislation. Ramesh said the earlier broad interpretation had provided a settled framework for nearly five decades and covered a wide range of public, private, charitable and non-profit activities, subject to recognised exclusions such as core sovereign functions. He argued that introducing a narrower commercial character requirement could create uncertainty over how different establishments are classified. 

Ramesh also criticised the government's Industrial Relations Code, 2020, alleging that it has weakened important safeguards for workers. His comments, however, represent the Congress leader's political assessment of the judgment and labour legislation. The Supreme Court's ruling itself focused on the interpretation of “industry” and the relationship between the earlier judicial framework and the statutory provisions of the 2020 Code. 

The immediate concern raised by Ramesh is therefore not that existing labour disputes have automatically been reopened, but that uncertainty could emerge in future cases as Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals apply the revised legal understanding. The Supreme Court's prospective approach provides protection to pending proceedings under the earlier law, while the precise impact of the new interpretation will depend on how the definition is applied in subsequent disputes. 

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday criticised the Congress over its decision to continue singing only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party events, accusing the opposition party of pursuing “appeasement and vote-bank politics”.

Shah said the Congress had repeated the position adopted by the party in 1937 and argued that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had now “corrected” that decision. He called on people to oppose any move against the full version of the national song and said the BJP would raise the issue publicly as well as in State Assemblies.

The remarks came a day after the Congress Working Committee reaffirmed its position to sing the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram at party programmes, citing the historical decision taken by Congress leaders in 1937. 

Shah Targets Congress

Shah alleged that the Congress had divided Vande Mataram into two parts in 1937 and was now following the same approach.

He described the party's position as an example of appeasement politics and said such politics would not succeed in India. BJP president Nitin Nabin also criticised the Congress, alleging that its decision was motivated by vote-bank considerations. 

The controversy has placed the national song at the centre of another political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with both parties invoking different interpretations of its history and use at public events.

Congress Cites 1937 Decision

Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal said the party would follow the position adopted by its senior leaders in 1937, including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, Subhas Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has previously explained that the issue was discussed by the Congress Working Committee in October 1937. According to Ramesh, the decision followed discussions among several prominent leaders over the portions of the song that should be used at Congress gatherings. 

The Congress has maintained that singing the first two stanzas at its events follows this historical convention rather than representing disrespect towards the national song.

Row Over Independence Day Event

The latest confrontation follows a controversy at the Congress headquarters in New Delhi during the Independence Day celebrations on August 15.

The BJP had alleged that Sonia Gandhi appeared uncomfortable during a rendition of the full version of Vande Mataram and suggested that she wanted the song stopped. Congress rejected the allegation, with Jairam Ramesh saying there had been no attempt to interrupt the song. He said Sonia Gandhi had been standing for a long period and had asked for a chair.

The episode subsequently became a political issue, with BJP leaders accusing Congress of disrespecting the national song. 

Legal Protection Expanded

The political dispute comes weeks after Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

The legislation extends statutory protection under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to Vande Mataram. It makes intentional prevention of the national song's singing or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing it punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. 

The legislation was passed by Parliament at the end of July. 

Importantly, the legal provisions concern deliberate obstruction or disturbance of the singing. They should not automatically be read as making every instance of an individual choosing not to sing a criminal offence. 

History of Vande Mataram

Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Vande Mataram became one of the most recognisable symbols of India's freedom movement. Rabindranath Tagore famously sang it at an Indian National Congress session in 1896.

The song was later included in Chattopadhyay's novel Anandamath and came to occupy a significant place in India's nationalist movement.

The current political dispute, however, centres less on the song's historical importance and more on whether its full version should be routinely sung at political and public functions.

BJP-Congress Clash Continues

The disagreement over Vande Mataram has now developed into a broader political contest over nationalism, the Congress's historical decisions and the government's efforts to promote the complete rendition of the national song.

While the BJP has accused Congress of appeasement politics, the Congress has defended its position by referring to the decisions of leaders of the freedom movement.

With both parties preparing to take their respective positions to the public, the Vande Mataram controversy is likely to remain a prominent political issue in the coming days.

Party president Mallikarjun Kharge outlined the plan in a detailed post on X, using the phrase "chanda chori" — loosely, "donation theft" — to describe the alleged embezzlement scandal at Ayodhya's Ram Temple, which he framed as a betrayal of religious faith. Alongside that, Kharge listed examination paper leaks and what he called the systemic erosion of the education system, allegations of institutional capture, political defections, multiple corruption scandals, persistent price rises, foreign policy setbacks, the government's ethanol blending mandate affecting an estimated 3.5 crore vehicle owners, unchecked deforestation, and what the party describes as continued erosion of rights for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and minorities.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh, briefing reporters after the meeting, said the party would specifically press for a discussion on the Ram Temple donations issue, saying fresh developments in the case were surfacing daily and that Congress intended to raise what it characterises as a scandal linked to the BJP and RSS in Ayodhya. He said the party would also raise concerns tied to the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak and broader worries about the state of India's education system.

On the foreign policy front, Ramesh said Congress wants a dedicated debate covering India's relationships with China, the United States and the evolving situation in West Asia, along with what he described as the strategic implications of Pakistan's deepening ties with Washington. He voiced frustration with how past sessions have unfolded, saying the government typically promises to prioritise opposition-raised issues at all-party meetings but then focuses primarily on passing legislation instead, leaving little room for the discussions opposition parties actually push for.

Beyond the issues list, Ramesh also flagged that the Congress had learned the government was preparing to reintroduce the Delimitation Bill, after failing to get it passed in April, and said the party would oppose it "with full strength," working to keep the broader opposition united against the legislation.

The Monsoon Session is scheduled to run from July 20 to August 13, and Thursday's strategy meeting was attended by Kharge, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, and other senior party figures including KC Venugopal and Shashi Tharoor. With both the Ram Temple donation controversy and the Delimitation Bill already generating friction well before Parliament convenes, the session is shaping up as one of the more contentious in recent years.

‘Compromised PM no longer capable’: Rahul says ‘don’t buy gold’ advice is proof of Modi govt’s failure

 Congress leader Rahul Gandhi launched a sharp counterattack on Monday against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent “seven appeals” to the public, arguing that asking citizens to cut back on gold, travel, and cooking oil was not sound advice but an admission of the government’s own economic mismanagement.

In a post on X, Gandhi said the Prime Minister appeared “compromised” and no longer capable of running the country.

“Yesterday, Modi ji asked the public to make sacrifices—don’t buy gold, don’t travel abroad, use less petrol, reduce consumption of fertilisers and cooking oil, take the metro, work from home. These are not suggestions. These are failures,” Gandhi wrote.

He added that after 12 years in power, the government had reached a point where the Prime Minister had to tell people what to buy, what not to buy, where to go, and where not to go.

PM’s Secunderabad pitch

The exchange began on Sunday. Speaking at a rally in Secunderabad, PM Modi had stressed the need to reduce dependence on imports to save foreign exchange. He listed seven specific asks: reduce petrol and diesel use, promote work-from-home models, cut down on edible oil consumption, halve chemical fertiliser use, postpone non-essential foreign travel, and avoid buying or donating gold for one year.

Officials said the appeals were prompted by rising global prices due to conflicts in West Asia. India, which does not have large domestic oil reserves, remains vulnerable.

Opposition piles on

But opposition parties quickly rejected the narrative. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh claimed the economic situation was far more serious than official figures suggested. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP had failed on both the economy and foreign policy.

“As soon as elections ended, the government suddenly remembered a ‘crisis’. In reality, there is only one crisis for the country, and its name is BJP,” Yadav said.

Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale questioned why ordinary citizens were being asked to make sacrifices while ministers continued using Air Force aircraft and large convoys. He also asked why the announcements came only after several state elections had concluded.

The numbers behind the appeal

Government data and industry reports show why foreign exchange outflows have become a concern.

Annual gold expenditure has crossed ₹6 lakh crore, up from ₹4.89 lakh crore in 2024–25. The World Gold Council noted that in the first quarter of 2026, investment demand for gold in India surpassed jewellery demand for the first time.

Indians spent ₹3.65 lakh crore on foreign travel in 2025–26, a sharp rise from ₹2.72 lakh crore in 2023–24.

Fertiliser imports touched ₹1.50 lakh crore this year, a 76 per cent jump. A significant portion comes from Qatar, making supplies vulnerable to regional instability. Prices have remained elevated as a result.

Crude oil, however, remains the biggest drain. India imports nearly 70 per cent of its requirements. While the oil import bill declined to ₹10.35 lakh crore in 2025–26 from ₹11.66 lakh crore the previous year, crude prices have surged nearly 50 per cent in the past two months. Sources familiar with the matter said the bill could climb to ₹17 lakh crore if the conflict widens.

What happens now

For now, the political battle lines are clear. The government argues it is preparing the public for hard choices in the national interest. The opposition sees an administration struggling to shield the economy from global shocks.

Rahul Gandhi ended his post with a pointed remark: “A compromised PM cannot fix this. A failed govt cannot ask for more sacrifices.” The Prime Minister’s Office has not issued a direct response.