Cutting Russian oil imports to avoid potential new US tariffs could increase fuel prices ahead of key regional elections, or stress government finances. Maintaining such purchases could cripple Indian exports to its largest market.

India, the world’s third-largest oil importer and among the biggest buyers of Russian crude, reacted unusually strongly on Thursday to a US congressional bill that would allow Washington to impose tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries, including India and China, for major purchases of Russian oil.

The sharp response showed how an energy trade that has delivered India billions of dollars in savings since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is now colliding with its broader strategic and commercial interests.

New Delhi said it had warned the United States that the measure could damage bilateral relations and disrupt global energy markets, vowing to keep “ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people” by buying from diversified sources.

But holding firm could further strain ties with Washington after a turbulent year marked by repeated disputes over trade and tariffs under President Donald Trump. A planned trade deal between the two countries has already faced multiple delays.

Trade talks at delicate stage

Two Indian sources said the latest tensions did not mean New Delhi would abandon hopes of striking a trade deal with Washington, though they said India may increasingly need to lean on deals elsewhere if additional US tariffs hit exports.

Since last year, India has signed a trade deal with Britain, finalised one with the EU and is looking to conclude talks on another one with Canada by the end of the year.

New Delhi is hoping for a breakthrough when Modi travels to the US for the G20 summit in December, where he could meet Trump on the sidelines, said one of the sources.

The White House and the Indian government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The US-India relationship has suffered over the last year for a range of reasons, including US tariffs,” said Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

“But this new legislation, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support and takes the most maximalist position possible on punishing India for its Russian oil buys, may be the biggest blow yet.”

If Washington delayed implementing tariffs or applied them only lightly, the damage could be manageable, he said, adding the legislation nevertheless could widen the trust gap in Delhi for a trade deal and make it harder for Indian negotiators to agree to last-minute concessions needed to secure a deal.

“From the perspective of the trade talks, this new legislation couldn’t have come at a worse time,” he said.

“The two sides are not far from the finish line, but getting there will require careful diplomacy.”

Political headache for Modi

The bill has already become a political issue in India, with the opposition urging Modi to adopt a tougher stance. Any hike in pump prices would be risky for Modi, whose party faces elections in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, in Punjab and in Modi’s home state of Gujarat starting early next year. Modi’s BJP runs both Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.

Before Trump, India was courted by the United States for decades as a strategic counterweight to China, but the world’s fifth-largest economy has repeatedly been left reeling over the past year by decisions taken in Washington.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India sharply increased purchases of discounted Russian crude, which now account for more than 40pc of India’s overall oil supplies. The stepped-up purchases were partly the reason Trump imposed tariffs of as much as 50pc on Indian goods in August 2025, among the steepest levied on any country.

In February, Trump rolled back those duties in exchange for what he said was India’s commitment to halt Russian oil purchases and lower trade barriers.

But New Delhi only briefly reduced purchases from Russia in early 2026. They have since jumped, especially since the supply shock that followed the US and Israeli attack on Iran.

New Delhi has repeatedly resisted pressure to scale back purchases, arguing that its large population and growing economy need secure, affordable and reliable energy supplies. Indian refiners have already secured crude supplies for September and October that include Russian oil, sources familiar with the matter have told Reuters.

Indian analysts said the country’s purchases of Russian oil were not financing the Ukraine war, but only helping stabilise global supplies and keeping domestic prices in check.

“Tariffs of up to 100pc would punish Indian exporters and American consumers, disrupt trade and give the US president excessive power over major partners,” said Ajay Srivastava, founder of New Delhi-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative and a former trade ministry official.

The researchers from security firm Hacktron said they found a security flaw in OpenAI’s public help forum, run by the Discourse platform, that allowed them to take control of the site.

“We immediately reported the initial vulnerability to OpenAI and Discourse and worked with them to coordinate the patch,” Hacktron said in a blog post.

“We appreciate their attention to detail and fast resolution of this issue,” the post added.

OpenAI confirmed the flaw was fixed within about 14 hours of being notified and paid the researchers a $6,500 reward.

“We thank the researchers for contacting us and sharing their findings. We narrowed the permissions on Community sign-in tokens and revoked affected tokens and sessions,” said Drew Pusateri, an OpenAI spokesperson.

The Hacktron researchers said they initially used Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8 to identify and exploit the software flaw, but struggled to make it work consistently.

After Anthropic released Claude Opus 5, the researchers said the newer model produced a working hack within about three hours.

The hackers did not use Claude Mythos, a more capable Anthropic model that is restricted to a small group of vetted cyber-defence organisations.

Anthropic has described Mythos as having the strongest cybersecurity capabilities of any model it has built.

Hacktron said the underlying software flaw is not unique to OpenAI and is used across many companies’ products, including those made by Slack and Meta.

The firm said it is continuing similar tests at other companies.

The case adds to growing concern among security experts that AI tools are making it faster and cheaper to carry out sophisticated cyberattacks that once required specialised teams and months of work.

Imaan and Hadi were arrested late on Thursday in a second case after the SC ordered their release in a case pertaining to their posts on social media. The couple was sentenced to 17 years on multiple charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) in the case.

However, soon after their release on Thursday, Islamabad police personnel arrested the two outside Adiala jail in connection with another case and produced them before an anti-terrorism court, which sent them to jail on judicial remand.

The second case was registered at the federal capital’s Kohsar police station on March 22, 2025 on a complaint by City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio. Imaan and her husband were accused of chanting anti-government slogans and blocking roads and were named in the first information report (FIR).

The IBA expressed concern over the couple’s rearrest in a statement on Friday and announced that lawyers would not appear before any court in the capital on Sept 19 (Saturday).

The bar association said the arrest undermined the sanctity of judicial proceedings and amounted to a violation of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

It also expressed strong reservations over the practice of arresting individuals in connection with “unknown” FIRs. The IBA held that any attempt to circumvent or frustrate court orders was unacceptable.

It demanded the immediate release of Imaan and Hadi and called for complete details of the cases and circumstances surrounding their arrests to be made public.

The association vowed to take every possible measure to safeguard judicial independence, uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental human rights.

Amnesty International, HRCP demand immediate and unconditional release

Global rights watchdog Amnesty Inter­national condemned the arrest and held that the action demonstrated “authorities’ willingness to weaponise the legal system against critical voices”.

“Imaan and Hadi’s re-arrest dispels any pretence that the charges against them are anything other than a politically motivated attempt to punish them for their human rights work,” rights body’s South Asia director, Babu Ram Pant, said in a statement.

Pant held that charges were “not only absurd, but an insult to their lifelong commitment to human rights”.

The official called on the Pakistani authorities to release the couple immediately and “unconditionally, with no further charges to prolong their detention”.

“Imaan and Hadi should be free to meet their friends and family and to do the work they love – representing victims of human rights violations.”

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in a post on X, also demanded Imaan and Hadi’s release and withdrawal of all cases against them.

The ruling came in a detailed 37-page judgment on a petition concerning the proposed nationwide PTI protest towards Islamabad on September 27, 2026. PTI had announced the march to demand release of party founder Imran Khan and mobilise people for the supremacy of the Constitution.

A citizen, Waqas Ahmed, had challenged the planned move on the grounds that the protest could disrupt routine life, traffic and business activities in the federal capital.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and comprising Justice Muhammad Asif and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan issued the judgment.

The bench had announced its short order on September 14 after hearing Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman, the advocate generals of the four provinces and Islamabad, and counsel for the petitioner, Barrister Akhter Cheena.

The court described the case as requiring an “unusual degree of constitutional balance” between the right of political parties and citizens to assemble peacefully and express dissent, and the rights of other citizens to life, liberty, dignity, free movement, trade, business, property, and access to hospitals, educational institutions, courts and workplaces.

“The question is not whether a political party is entitled to protest. It plainly is, subject always to the Constitution and law,” the judgment observed.

The court held that the right to peaceful assembly could not be exercised in a manner that infringed the fundamental rights of other citizens.

A key objection raised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general concerned the territorial jurisdiction of the IHC over provincial authorities functioning outside Islamabad.

Rejecting the objection, the court held that Article 199(1)(c) empowered a high court to issue directions where a governmental power or function was being exercised “in, or in relation to” territory within its jurisdiction.

The court clarified, however, that the provision did not confer general supervisory jurisdiction over another province. A high court could issue directions to an authority outside its territorial seat where the governmental function had a direct and proximate legal relation with territory within its jurisdiction and intervention was necessary to protect fundamental rights there.

The bench also observed that where executive action or inaction was likely to infringe the fundamental rights of citizens within Islamabad, the court was under a “bounden duty” to assume jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c).

The court also rejected the objection that the petition was not maintainable because KP Chief Minister Sohail Afridi had not been impleaded as a respondent. It noted that the Advocate General KP was representing both the provincial government and the chief minister.

The court further rejected the argument that the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy under the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act, 2024.

It noted that no application had, admittedly, been filed under Section 3 of the Act and observed that its provisions had not been adhered to by the KP chief minister and others who had announced their intention to march towards Islamabad.

The judgment extensively referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Faizabad sit-in case, observing that the constitutional right to assemble and protest was protected but remained subject to restrictions where its exercise infringed the fundamental rights of others.

The IHC also referred to the Supreme Court judgment concerning the PTI march of May 25, 2022, noting that assurances regarding a peaceful rally and non-obstruction of the Srinagar Highway had not been honoured.

The judgment referred to damage to public and private property, fires in the Blue Area greenbelt, injuries to police personnel and the subsequent invocation of Article 245 to call in the armed forces in aid of civil power.

The court also cited its November 21, 2024 order directing that no protest, rally or sit-in be allowed in violation of the Peaceful Assembly and Public Order Act. It observed that the order had also been flouted.

During the proceedings, the court allowed the Islamabad deputy commissioner/district magistrate to place electronic material on record. Video clips of the 2022 and 2024 protests were played before the bench, which described the conduct shown in the footage as “highly disturbing and reflective of violence and aggression”.

The court noted that PTI was in power in KP during both episodes and observed that provincial government resources had been used in pursuit of political objectives.

Regarding the proposed September 27 march, the court held that the petitioner’s apprehension was not merely speculative. It noted that the date and destination of the proposed gathering were known and that statements attributed to the KP chief minister indicated that the date was firm and that he intended to lead the march.

While disposing of the petition, the court directed that no political party, political leader, provincial government or public office holder could lawfully occupy roads, highways, interchanges, toll plazas, buildings or similar public places within, or leading to or from, Islamabad in a manner that obstructed free movement or hindered trade, business, professions or access to medical and educational facilities.

The provincial governments and chief ministers were directed to ensure that no government resources, public funds, officials, vehicles, machinery or equipment were used directly or indirectly to facilitate any march, rally or procession towards Islamabad.

They were also directed to ensure that no public servant was compelled, coerced or induced to participate in such activities.

The chief secretaries, police chiefs, federal interior secretary, chief commissioner and IG Islamabad were ordered to issue instructions prohibiting officials from complying with orders requiring them to facilitate such marches.

Officials facing coercion were directed to report the matter to the relevant authorities, while helplines or other communication mechanisms were ordered to be established for this purpose.

The court further directed the authorities to take departmental action against officials who violated the directions.

In a significant finding, the court held that any person whose activity resulted in a violation of the fundamental rights of citizens in Islamabad would be deemed to have violated the Constitution and would be liable for consequences under the law.

It further declared that any public office holder whose activity resulted in a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights would be deemed to have violated both the Constitution and his or her oath of office.