Prime Minister Narendra Modi has achieved a major political milestone by becoming India’s longest-serving elected Prime Minister, surpassing the record previously held by Jawaharlal Nehru. The achievement marks another landmark in Modi’s political career, which began when he first assumed office in May 2014.

Leaders from several countries congratulated the Prime Minister on the occasion, praising his leadership and his role in strengthening India’s position on the global stage. Many highlighted his contribution to international cooperation, economic growth and the interests of developing nations.

Modi has led the Bharatiya Janata Party to three consecutive general election victories, securing terms in 2014, 2019 and 2024. His uninterrupted tenure has made him the longest-serving elected head of government in India’s democratic history.

The milestone comes as the Modi government completes 12 years in office. During this period, the government has focused on areas including infrastructure development, digital transformation, welfare initiatives and economic reforms.

Congratulatory messages from international leaders reflected India’s growing influence in global affairs and acknowledged Modi’s role in strengthening diplomatic partnerships with countries across different regions.

The Prime Minister is also expected to continue his international engagements in the coming weeks, with diplomatic visits and global forums remaining a key part of India’s foreign policy outreach.

As Modi crosses this historic milestone, political observers view it as a significant moment in India’s democratic journey and a reflection of his sustained electoral success over more than a decade.

Tensions between Iran and the United States intensified on Wednesday after Tehran claimed responsibility for a drone attack targeting the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, hours after American forces carried out strikes on Iranian military infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz.

The latest escalation followed the downing of a US Army Apache helicopter near the strategic waterway. The US military subsequently launched what it described as self-defence strikes against Iranian air defence systems, surveillance radars and ground control stations in the region.

Iran warns of further retaliation

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington had chosen to test Tehran’s resolve and warned that Iranian forces would not leave any attack or threat unanswered. He also cautioned foreign forces against remaining in the region if they wanted to remain safe.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it responded to the American strikes by launching a drone attack against the US Fifth Fleet headquartered in Bahrain. The group further warned that stronger retaliatory measures could follow if US military action continued.

According to the IRGC, its Aerospace Force also launched long-range missiles at an airbase in Jordan that hosts US military personnel, claiming several critical facilities at the base were hit.

Bahrain confirms attacks

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry acknowledged the attacks and urged residents to remain calm and move to the nearest safe location if necessary. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, oversees American naval operations across the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters.

US says strikes were a proportional response

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) later announced that American forces had completed their self-defence operation against Iran. The military described the action as a proportional response to recent attacks on US personnel and international commercial shipping in regional waters.

CENTCOM said precision-guided munitions launched by US Air Force and Navy aircraft targeted Iranian air defence and surveillance infrastructure near the Strait of Hormuz. The command added that US forces remained prepared to defend against any further aggression.

The American strikes came after an investigation reportedly concluded that an Iranian drone had hit a US Apache helicopter, causing it to crash near the Strait of Hormuz. Officials said investigators had not determined whether the incident was intentional.

A US federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump’s controversial $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, ruling that the measure amounted to an unlawful tax that had not been authorised by Congress.

The decision was delivered by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston in a case brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the fee announced by the Trump administration in September. The lawsuit argued that the sharp increase in visa costs would make it harder for employers to recruit highly skilled foreign professionals.

Court says fee exceeded presidential authority

In his ruling, Judge Sorokin rejected the administration’s argument that the fee was a lawful penalty under immigration law. Instead, he concluded that the charge functioned as a tax, which can only be imposed with congressional approval.

The court found that the president did not have the authority to introduce such a levy through executive action. The ruling invalidates the fee and prevents its enforcement.

H-1B programme widely used by employers

The H-1B visa programme is a key pathway used by US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialised fields. The programme issues 65,000 visas annually, along with an additional 20,000 visas for individuals holding advanced degrees. Approved visas are generally valid for three to six years.

Before the fee increase, employers typically paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in visa-related charges, depending on various factors. Trump’s policy raised the cost dramatically, drawing criticism from technology companies and other employers that rely on skilled international talent.

Fee saw limited uptake

Court filings showed that the higher fee significantly reduced demand for new H-1B applications. According to government submissions, US Citizenship and Immigration Services had received only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee by mid-February.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling, keeping the legal battle over the policy ongoing.