NCP (SP) Delegation Meets PM Modi Over Maharashtra Issues

A delegation of eight Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) Lok Sabha MPs met Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, August 10, 2026. Working president Supriya Sule led the 15-minute meeting in New Delhi, a PTI report said.

The legislators focused on constituency-specific concerns highlighting drought conditions, onion prices and pollution in the Chandrabhaga river.

Sule told PTI regarding the brief meeting, "We have discussed Maharashtra issues."

The delegation did not discuss the highly contentious Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026.

Addressing Local State Concerns

The state government previously extended the "Namami Chandrabhaga Abhiyan" river cleanup programme through 2026. Pandharpur currently operates two sewage treatment plants totalling 18 MLD. The local administration is also preparing a detailed project report for a proposed 13 MLD facility.

Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde announced a ₹120-crore pollution-control plan in November 2025. This came alongside the January 2026 approval of the Chief Minister Warkari Corporation to develop riverfront ghats. 

This dialogue follows an earlier high-level meeting on July 22, 2026, when NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar and Sule met Modi. They discussed NEET paper leaks, farmers' problems, water management and education. In a post in Marathi on 'X', Pawar said, "The Honourable Prime Minister gave assurances of positive and concrete measures on all these issues." The NCP (SP) is currently a part of the opposition INDIA bloc.

The FCRA Bill Debate

Sule had publicly urged the Centre on Saturday, August 8, 2026, to either withdraw the FCRA Bill or refer it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. She said the government should not always view foreign funding with suspicion.

The FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026, proposes establishing a "Designated Authority". This body would seize and manage NGO assets if an organisation's registration is cancelled, surrendered or lapses. The bill also reduces the maximum violation penalty from five years of imprisonment to one year.

Opposition parties object to these provisions. They argue the bill creates a confiscatory system without prior judicial determination. Critics also maintain it weakens state authority by requiring central government approval before initiating state-level FCRA investigations.