The H-1B Visa Fee Hike: Myths vs Reality

 

The H-1B Visa Fee Hike: Myths vs Reality

By: S.N. VERMA

The recent announcement by the U.S. administration regarding a sharp hike in H-1B visa fees has sparked confusion, panic, and speculation—especially in India, which accounts for the largest share of H-1B professionals. On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation mandating a US$100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions.

Initial reports suggested that this fee was annual and would apply even to existing visa holders and renewals, raising fears among Indian tech workers, students, and companies. Some H-1B holders even rushed to advance travel plans to avoid being caught in the new regime.

However, subsequent clarifications by the White House have helped to separate fact from rumor. Let us cut through the confusion with a clear Myths vs Reality guide.

Myth 1: The $100,000 is an annual fee

Reality: It is a one-time charge. The fee applies only once per new H-1B petition filed on or after September 21, 2025. It is not recurring every year.

Illustration: If a U.S. company hires a software engineer from Bengaluru on H-1B in October 2025, it must pay $100,000 at the time of filing. But that same employee’s extension three years later will not attract this fee.

Myth 2: Existing H-1B holders and renewals must also pay

Reality: The hike does not apply to current H-1B visa holders or to renewals of visas already issued before September 21, 2025.

Illustration: An Indian IT professional already working in Texas on H-1B can continue and even renew her visa in 2026 without her employer paying the $100,000 fee.

Myth 3: Employees must bear this cost

Reality: Under U.S. law, the employer (sponsor) bears the cost of filing. Companies cannot legally transfer the burden of the petition fee to employees.

Illustration: If a California startup wants to hire an Indian data scientist in 2026, it is the startup—not the employee—that must pay the $100,000.

Myth 4: Travel abroad triggers the fee for existing holders

Reality: H-1B professionals already holding a valid visa can travel in and out of the U.S. freely without incurring the new fee.

Illustration: An Indian H-1B worker visiting family in Delhi during Diwali can return to the U.S. on the same visa without her employer paying again.

Myth 5: The fee hike is permanent

Reality: The proclamation sets the fee hike for one year—from September 21, 2025, to September 21, 2026. However, U.S. Govt  has the discretion to extend it further.

Implications for India

Large Indian IT firms (Infosys, TCS, Wipro) will still sponsor H-1B professionals, but the huge cost may reduce overall intake.

Smaller companies and startups may scale back or avoid sponsorship due to financial strain.

Indian students in the U.S. on OPT hoping to transition to H-1B may face fewer opportunities, as employers will weigh the cost.

U.S. tech giants may continue sponsorships but will be more selective, limiting the number of petitions filed.

Conclusion

The headline figure of a $100,000 H-1B fee caused shockwaves, but much of the panic stemmed from myths and half-truths. The reality is that this is a one-time, employer-paid fee applicable only to new petitions filed after September 21, 2025. Existing H-1B visa holders and renewals remain unaffected.

For Indian aspirants, this means opportunities are unlikely to disappear, but competition may intensify as employers—especially smaller ones—rethink their hiring strategies. In the coming months, it will be critical to watch how U.S. agencies implement the proclamation, whether legal challenges arise, and if the policy is extended beyond its initial one-year term.

SC’s Waqf Act Ruling: Reform Intact, Propaganda Defeated

 SC’s Waqf Act Ruling: Reform Intact, Propaganda Defeated

By S.N. Verma

The Supreme Court’s interim order of September 15, 2025, on the Waqf (Amendment) Act has triggered contrasting reactions. Critics expected a blanket stay; instead, the Court issued only a partial interim stay on a few contentious provisions, while refusing to halt the Act in its entirety. Far from being a setback, the ruling is a calibrated judicial endorsement of the government’s reform agenda.

No Blanket Stay = Presumption of Constitutionality

At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s refusal to suspend the entire law. This is crucial: the judiciary presumes Parliamentary enactments to be constitutional. By allowing the Act to continue, the Court has sent a clear signal that the Waqf reforms are not prima facie unconstitutional.

For the Modi Sarkar, this is an important legal and political victory. The “secular” propaganda machine that demanded scrapping of the law in totality has been effectively silenced.

Provisions Under Partial Stay

Five-Year “Practising Islam” Requirement

 The Act mandated that a waqif (the person creating a waqf) must have practised Islam continuously for at least five years. The Court has stayed this clause until States frame rules.

Reality check: NDA-ruled States can align rules with the Centre’s vision. However, opposition ruled States will face public scrutiny as people are going to ask them do they protect people’s ancestral land or gift it away?

Collector’s Powers

 The Act empowered Collectors to decide whether land is waqf or government property, and to alter records accordingly. SC has stayed these provisions, holding that executive officers cannot usurp the role of tribunals.

Net effect: This prevents misuse by politically loyal bureaucrats in opposition-ruled States. The adjudication will now rest with quasi-judicial bodies, ensuring fairness.

Non-Muslim Representation in Waqf Boards

 The Court capped non-Muslim representation to 4 in the Central Waqf Council and 3 in State Boards (for 11-member boards). It also said the CEO/chairperson should “as far as possible” be a Muslim.

But here’s the catch: The Court did not stay the provision that allows a non-Muslim to be appointed CEO of the Board. This leaves the government with a critical lever of oversight.

Provisions That Stand Intact

Abolition of “Waqf by User”: One of the most powerful tools of land encroachment has been permanently struck down by Parliament. SC has not stayed this reform.

Non-Muslim CEOs & Ex-Officio Members: Still allowed, despite limits on membership numbers.

These are game-changing reforms that remain untouched.

Judicial Principles at Play

Separation of Powers: SC rightly curbed arbitrary powers of Collectors, reinforcing the role of tribunals.

Equality & Religious Freedom: By staying the five-year requirement until rules are framed, SC prevented potential arbitrariness against converts or new adherents.

Balance of Autonomy & Inclusivity: By capping non-Muslim membership, SC maintained Waqf Boards as minority-led institutions, while still allowing broader perspectives.

Why This is a Victory for Modi Sarkar, Not a Setback

Those branding the verdict as a “blow” to Modi Sarkar miss the larger picture:

-The Act remains alive and operational.

 -Major reforms—especially the deletion of “waqf by user”—are untouched.

 - Interim stays are surgical, meant to refine, not repeal.

 -Government retains decisive influence through CEO appointments.

In plain terms, those who had indulged in Land Jihad for long  have lost their biggest weapon, and the constitutional validity of the law is intact.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has delivered a measured verdict—blocking provisions prone to misuse, but leaving the architecture of reform unshaken. For the Modi government, this is both a legal endorsement and a political boost.

The message is clear: the Waqf Amendment Act is here to stay. Fake campaigns by so-called secularists have lost steam, and the path to reforming centuries-old misuse of waqf lands has been judicially secured.

GST Rate Cuts: Will the Benefits Really Reach the Common People?

GST Rate Cuts: Will the Benefits Really Reach the Common People?

(By S.N. VERMA)

The recent decision of the Government to slash GST rates on several essential goods and services was undoubtedly a welcome move. It reflects the intent of policymakers to ease the financial burden of the middle class and poor, while also boosting consumption and accelerating economic growth. For instance, reducing GST on household items like kitchen appliances, footwear, and medicines, as well as exempting life and health insurance from the GST net, was expected to directly benefit families struggling with rising costs of living.

On paper, the step appears transformative. However, the critical question remains: will the intended benefits truly reach the middle and poor segments of society?

The Corporate Reality: A Pattern of Erosion of Benefits

Unfortunately, experience suggests otherwise. The track record of many corporates raises serious doubts about whether the relief announced by the Government will be passed on in full measure to consumers.

Short-term Relief, Long-term Inflation: Initially, companies may reduce prices marginally to show compliance. A washing machine that cost ₹20,000 before the GST cut might be reduced to ₹19,000 for a few months. Consumers will feel a temporary sense of relief. But gradually, firms are likely to cite rising raw material costs, transportation expenses, or “quality enhancement” as reasons to raise prices again. Within a year, the same washing machine may cost ₹21,000, thereby nullifying the GST benefit.

Insurance Sector Concerns: The case of health and life insurance is even more sensitive. The Government’s intention is clear—make insurance more affordable for the common man. But what if companies simply increase the base premium, offsetting the GST exemption? A ₹10,000 health insurance policy, earlier costing ₹11,800 with GST, should ideally drop to ₹10,000 after exemption. Yet insurers might quietly revise the premium upwards to ₹11,000 or more, ensuring the benefit never reaches the policyholder.

Past Precedents: We have seen similar episodes in the past. When corporate tax rates were reduced, very few companies passed on the gains to consumers in the form of lower prices. Instead, the windfall was often absorbed as higher profits or used to reward shareholders. The same risk exists with GST rate cuts.

The Underlying Issue: Corporate Avarice vs. Public Welfare

This situation highlights a deeper conflict between corporate profit-maximisation and public welfare. While the Government can reduce indirect taxes to make essentials affordable, corporates driven by quarterly profit targets often undermine this objective. In effect, the gap between Government intent and ground reality is filled by the greed and lack of accountability of a section of the corporate sector.

The Need for Regulatory Oversight

If the Government genuinely wants the GST benefits to trickle down to the intended beneficiaries, it must not stop at rate cuts. Regulatory oversight is essential.

Monitoring Mechanism: Just as the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) was created earlier to ensure businesses pass on GST cuts to consumers, a similar robust mechanism must be strengthened or revived. Companies should be compelled to demonstrate, with transparency, how rate cuts have translated into price reductions.

Consumer Vigilance: Alongside regulatory checks, consumer awareness campaigns are needed. If buyers are educated about the expected price changes, they can push back against unjustified hikes.

Sector-Specific Controls: Insurance, healthcare, and education need stricter supervision. In these areas, where consumers often have little bargaining power, regulation must prevent companies from exploiting GST exemptions to pad their margins.

The Stakes: Affordability, Consumption, and Growth

The stakes could not be higher. If GST rate cuts fail to reach the poor and middle class, the entire policy will collapse into a missed opportunity. Instead of boosting consumption, it will only increase corporate profits. Instead of making healthcare and life protection affordable, it will deepen mistrust between citizens and the system. And instead of balancing affordability with revenue generation, it will worsen inequality and discontent.

Conclusion

The Government has indeed done its bit by reducing GST rates in good faith. But unless the ethics, morality, and integrity of corporates are held accountable through effective regulatory mechanisms, the intended benefits will be wiped out within months. The challenge now lies not in policy design, but in policy implementation. If corporate greed goes unchecked, the noble objective of making essentials affordable and boosting inclusive growth will remain unfulfilled.

The ball is now in the Government’s court—to ensure that GST rate cuts do not end up as another case where the middle class and poor are promised relief but delivered disappointment.

GST Rate Cuts: A Strategic Push for Consumption and Economic Stability

 

GST Rate Cuts: A Strategic Push for Consumption and Economic Stability

By S.N. Verma

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s announcement of sweeping GST rate rationalisation on September 3, 2025, marks one of the most significant indirect tax reforms since the inception of GST. The move comes at a critical juncture—when households are battling high living costs, and India is seeking to cushion the impact of U.S. tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

A Simplified GST Structure

The government has collapsed the earlier four-tier system (5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) into a more predictable two-tier framework of 5% and 18%, with an additional 40% slab for luxury and sin goods. This rationalisation aims at reducing complexity and ensuring that taxation aligns with the purchasing power of common households.

Relief for the Middle and Lower Classes

Essentials Become Cheaper

Everyday necessities that touch almost every Indian household—toothpaste, soaps, shampoos, namkeen, pasta, sauces, noodles, chocolates, coffee, butter, ghee, preserved meat, and instant snacks—have all been shifted to the 5% slab. Likewise, paneer, UHT milk, roti, chapati, and paratha are now fully exempt from GST.

This is a direct boost to middle- and lower-income families, where food and personal care items constitute a major portion of monthly expenditure. The GST relief will allow households to stretch their rupee further, increasing disposable income for other needs.

Affordable Durables

Previously taxed at 28%, items such as refrigerators, air conditioners, washing machines, small cars, motorcycles, and televisions will now attract only 18% GST. The reduction in prices of such consumer durables is expected to stimulate demand in urban as well as semi-urban markets, creating a multiplier effect across industries and supply chains.

Healthcare Protection at No Tax

Perhaps the most impactful reform for social security is the zero GST on life and health insurance premiums. This move not only makes insurance affordable for middle-class families but also nudges millions of uninsured Indians to opt for financial protection—an essential step towards universal health coverage.

Balancing Affordability with Revenue

The government has safeguarded its fiscal interests by introducing a 40% GST slab on luxury and sin goods such as cigarettes, pan masala, gutkha, high-end cars, and carbonated beverages. While everyday goods are now cheaper, non-essential indulgences will continue to be heavily taxed—striking a balance between social welfare and revenue collection.

Economic Implications

Boosting Consumption

Private consumption accounts for nearly 61% of India’s GDP. By reducing the tax burden on essentials and consumer durables, the reforms are expected to unleash fresh demand in FMCG, automobiles, and consumer electronics. Analysts estimate that the new GST structure could add up to 0.5 percentage points to India’s GDP growth in the next two years.

Rural and Agricultural Gains

The GST cuts extend to certain agricultural machinery and inputs, directly benefiting farmers and rural communities. Cheaper farm equipment means higher productivity, while lower costs of essentials improve rural household budgets—expanding consumption at the grassroots level.

Cushion Against U.S. Tariffs

With the Trump administration’s higher tariff regime weighing on Indian exports, the government’s move is strategic. By shifting the growth engine inwards, the GST cuts stimulate domestic demand, offsetting export-side disruptions. In essence, what India may lose in foreign trade is expected to be partially compensated by a more robust home market.

Conclusion

The GST rationalisation is more than just a festive “Diwali gift.” It is a carefully timed policy intervention designed to strengthen household finances, stimulate demand, and insulate the economy from global shocks. By making essentials cheaper, big-ticket purchases more affordable, and insurance tax-free, the government has placed the consumer at the heart of its growth strategy.

India now stands to gain not only in terms of short-term consumption growth but also in building a more resilient economy, capable of withstanding international headwinds.

Bihar Assembly Elections 2025: Will PK Turn Kingmaker or Spoiler?

 

Bihar Assembly Elections 2025: Will PK Turn Kingmaker or Spoiler?

By S.N. Verma

As Bihar braces for a fierce electoral battle, the outcome seems predictable—yet uncertain. Predictable because the NDA appears ahead; uncertain because of one man—Prashant Kishor (PK)—whose entry has changed the dynamics.

Straight Fight? NDA Would Walk It

If this election were purely between the NDA and the INDI alliance, the NDA would secure a comfortable majority, and the INDI bloc would barely scrape 60–80 seats.

Why so? Let’s rewind to 2020.

2020: INDI’s Gains Were NDA’s Losses

The INDI alliance’s strong showing last time wasn’t because of its own might—it was fueled by NDA’s internal rifts:

BJP and JD(U) fought for dominance.

Chirag Paswan ran a proxy war against Nitish Kumar, hurting JD(U).

Upendra Kushwaha contested separately.

Result? JD(U)’s seat count crashed, and INDI gained. NDA crossed the majority line only narrowly.

2025: NDA Looks Stronger, Smarter

This time, NDA is united. BJP, JD(U), Chirag Paswan, and Upendra Kushwaha are together. Add to this a string of populist schemes that voters are cheering for:

125 units free electricity per household.

₹10,000 startup grant for women, expandable to ₹2 lakh.

Pension hike for elderly, widows, disabled from ₹400 to ₹1,100.

Journalists’ pensions doubled; dependents’ pensions tripled.

Youth internship stipends: ₹4,000–₹6,000 monthly.

Honorarium hikes for home guards and local officials.

35% reservation for women in government jobs.

The free electricity promise is making big waves.

Meanwhile, RJD remains stuck in its M+Y (Muslim + Yadav) base. Congress continues to piggyback on RJD, despite Rahul Gandhi’s 16-day yatra. Smaller allies? Unreliable.

In a head-to-head fight, NDA could bag 150+ seats easily.

Enter PK: The Wild Card

Prashant Kishor—the strategist-turned-politician—is not just contesting; he’s shaping the discourse. His straight talk and fresh image make him a magnet for voters tired of both alliances.

NDA’s baggage? 20 years of incumbency.

INDI’s baggage? The ghost of Jungle Raj.

PK offers a third option, and that’s shaking things up.

Who Loses More—NDA or INDI?

Yadavs remain loyal to Lalu.

Muslims may lean towards PK, but when the chips are down, they’ll likely vote INDI to block BJP.

PK’s biggest impact? Among urban and semi-urban voters who’d otherwise pick NDA.

If PK stops at 10 seats, NDA cruises. If he crosses 20, NDA’s majority tightens.

But in the end, if PK’s voters fear a Lalu comeback, they might switch to NDA at the last minute.

Bottom Line

NDA is ahead. The real question: Big win or narrow escape? The answer depends on Prashant Kishor—the spoiler or the kingmaker?