The Strait of Hormuz has been declared open for commercial shipping during the ongoing ceasefire, but fresh conditions imposed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have raised questions over how unrestricted the passage actually is.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that the crucial waterway would remain “completely open” for commercial vessels for the duration of the ceasefire. However, a separate statement from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) clarified that ships must comply with specific operational requirements while transiting the strait.

According to the IRGC, all vessels must obtain prior permission before entering the strait. Additionally, civilian ships are required to follow designated routes set by Iranian authorities, while military vessels continue to be prohibited from passing through.

The Guards described these measures as part of a “new order” aligned with ceasefire terms, though these details were not explicitly mentioned in the foreign minister’s initial announcement.

The differing messages have also triggered reactions within Iran, with some state-backed outlets criticising the earlier statement for lacking clarity and potentially creating confusion around the reopening of the strait.

Meanwhile, global attention remains focused on the strategic waterway, which handles a significant share of the world’s oil shipments. The reopening announcement led to a sharp drop in crude prices, reflecting expectations of improved supply flows.

US President Donald Trump also confirmed that the strait is open for passage, though he indicated that the American naval blockade targeting Iran would continue until broader negotiations are completed.

Despite the reopening, analysts suggest that the situation remains fragile, with ongoing restrictions, geopolitical tensions, and security concerns continuing to affect maritime movement through one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

Government secures 298 votes in favour, 230 against; proposal does not pass constitutional threshold

The proposed amendment related to women’s reservation failed to pass in the Lok Sabha on Friday after the government could not secure the required two-thirds majority.

The bill received 298 votes in favour and 230 against, falling short of the constitutional threshold needed for passage. As a constitutional amendment, it required the support of at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

Despite securing a simple majority, the government was unable to gather sufficient support to meet this requirement.

Debate continues over two days

The discussion on the bill extended late into Thursday and continued on Friday, with members from both sides participating in the debate on women’s representation in legislative bodies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged members to support the proposal, calling for wider consensus on the issue.

Implications of the outcome

The failure of the bill underscores the challenges in securing broad political agreement on constitutional amendments, especially those related to representation and electoral reforms.

The proposal was aimed at advancing women’s representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, an issue that has remained under discussion for several years.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.