 very good evening to one and all. Today we are starting a series of sessions which will be revision classes for for your upcoming prelims. So the plan is we have six sessions in the next three weeks. Every Monday and Friday we'll have sessions in the evening, five to eight. So it is in these sessions we will be covering subjects such as polity, science and tech, places in news, economics, okay, and international organizations, environment. So all those subjects where there is a relevance of current affairs. And the time period of coverage would be the last one year's current affairs, right, starting from last year's June onwards. But even though I may say that it starts from last year's June, syllabus will also extend to events that have taken even six months or a year before that as well because there is always a connect in the sequence of events, right. So we cannot strictly compartmentalize, but at least last one year's current affairs is what we intend to cover through these sessions. So as you can see, we have six sessions and every session will cover about 14 to 16 or 17 themes, right, approximately 15 themes per session. And the nature of the session is such that we'll have 30 questions per session, okay. So it will be a question and answer kind of a session. The reason is because when we take some 14 or 15 themes, we cannot complete the discussion of all 14 and 15 themes within a span of three hours. Because let's say anti defection law is a topic of current affairs, just to have entire discussion on anti defection law will take at least one and a half hours or two hours. So it would not be practically feasible to just start covering every topic and revise it for you. So that's why the session proceeds in a question and answer format where a question is displayed. And all the questions that are chosen have some relevance with current affairs. The questions are of two types. One is it could be some aspect of current affairs itself which may be framed as a part of the question. Or otherwise it may test the fundamentals and concepts underlying the current affairs. The reason is at least in polity, since we start today with our polity session, at least in polity if you analyze the last two or three years of questions as how it is asked in the problems, you will not find many questions. Let's say out of 10 questions, at least eight questions will be testing the fundamentals and concepts underlying something that happens in current affairs. Directly current affairs does not find us as a question in polity at least. So that's the nature of questions that I have prepared for the session today, where I will introduce you to 15 different themes of current affairs and what possible questions that tests your awareness about those themes plus whether you are very thorough with the concepts underlying those themes that will also be tested through these questions. So these questions are to indicate to you that this is what has happened. This is how probably UPSC can frame questions and it's a platform for you to test whether you are competent enough to handle a similar nature of questions like how it is going to be asked in your upcoming problems. All 30 questions, I would categorize them as above average level of difficulty. None of the questions are simple as such, but if you find it simple, that is really good. You are on the right track, but even if you're not able to get these questions mostly right, there's nothing to lose heart about it because as I told you, it's all either average or difficult. That would be the level of difficulty of all the 30 questions that I have framed because you see in quality, definitely out of total questions, 60% questions in quality and constitutionally very simple questions. So there is no point of asking those simple questions again to waste of your time as well as my time. So that's why all the questions have been prepared so as to give you an exposure to the remaining 40%, the difficulty, difficult kind of questions which possibly can be asked would be of this nature. So even if you can get those 60% of the easy questions right, if you can get 50% of the questions here in the discussion today, right, you are very well on your way to clear problems. So it's not expected that you should get all the questions here, correct? That is not our expectation. 50%? Very good, I would say. So I think we can proceed to the session and you can type in your response. Okay, whatever questions are asked, you can type in your response to my chat ID on Zoom. So I am logged in, Satya Krishnan. So I hope all of you can send your responses to me. Is it enabled? Can they respond back to me? Okay, can you all please send a response to me? I'm logged in as Satya Krishnan. Okay, so okay, I'm getting a message saying chat is disabled, is it so? Have they enabled the chat? Can you please type in a good evening message or Q&A is enabled? Okay, so if not, please send your response in the Q&A box. Okay, if not a chat can only ask through Q&A. Yeah, even Q&A is fine. So just post your answers through Q&A. All right, so let's get into the session. I'll start asking you questions. So these are all the areas which I found to be relevant for the upcoming year's prelims. So I believe all your current affairs are focused around these topics, right? So we have the anti-defection law, which is a perennial issue. Every year there is always some kind of a legal complication in the judiciary about anti-defection law. Okay, it's an evergreen topic. And this year also we have a case regarding anti-defection law, which has been referred to a constitution bench in Supreme Court, that is the Maharashtra Uddhav Thakre issue, right? So anti-defection law is a part of it. Then topics related to fundamental rights, secularism, right? So the state intervention to ban hijab in schools, uniform civil code. So these are all the certain themes that will be discussed in today's session. And election, a lot of events have been happening around election commission and representation of people's act in the last one and a half years. So there are some three or four questions regarding election commission, RPA in the slide. And Supreme Court's powers functions, for example, Collegium system is often discussed. The propriety of Collegium system, should there be an alternative system to replace the non-transparent Collegium system? So that is something that we find commonly across news districts. So you find that as well. And some bills, latest amendments, which have been carried out to certain legislations, maybe four or five different legislations, which we'll be touching upon, plus certain non-statutory bodies, statutory bodies, which are prominently news, like CBI, enforcement direct rate, right? So those bodies will also be discussed. And a very important topic, five years once it happens, election to the office of president of India. So we have that as well. So I find these are the different topics around which there have been some kind of current affairs which have happened in the last one, one and a half years. So I would request all of you to possibly, if possible, take a screenshot of this, even if you cannot note down the topic one by one. A screenshot would also suffice take it so that even after the session, you can browse more about these areas. This would give you a focus on what more to explore. So this can be done. So we'll move on to the first question. I hope all of you are ready. So what you do is you take a piece of paper, write down one, two, three, four up to 30. So if you know the answer, just mark A, B, C, D. If you don't know, just leave it blank. And immediately after the question, I'll give you the answer as well. So if you are right, mark it right. If not, mark it wrong. And finally evaluate how much you get. So we'll start. So the first theme is regarding elections. And what regarding elections? Supreme Court has passed an important judgment that imparts some kind of an independence to the functioning of election commission of India. The process of choosing the election commissioners has become much more inclusive now. It is not only going to be controlled by the executive alone, but we have the member from the legislature as well and as well as a collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India. So that is something that we can discuss about elections. And various current affairs regarding functions of election commission of India. For example, election commission has decided that it is the Ekna Chinde faction of Shiv Sena, who are the real Shiv Sena. So that is one function of election commission. When there is a dispute between a political party who has a claim over the party, it goes to the election commission and gets decided. So there is some news around it. So we have some issues and not only that, some amendments have been done to representation of people's act as well. So these are all some current affairs that has happened. So based on that, the questions follow. This is the first question. Consider the following statements regarding election commission of India and you have three statements. So you can type in in the question answer box, what are the, what is the right answer? We have multiple answers, many correct answers as well. The right answer for this question is option C. This is the correct answer. First of all, you should know what is the objective of Indrajit Gupta committee. We cannot go into the details of every committee regarding elections and we cannot go and memorize each and every committee's recommendations and everything. But broadly you should know that Dinesh Goswami committee is about electoral reforms. It is about changing the composition of election commission, imparting more independence to election commission. And many other changes to RPA 1950-51 were all recommended by Goswami committee. Whereas Indrajit Gupta committee regarding election, its only purpose is on electoral spending, how to reduce expenditure with respect to elections. That was the only objective. So the entire committee's recommendations only revolves around those issues. It does not go into the composition of election commission or anything. So this is a fact. Even if you do not know that, still you can get the answer right. If you know that, as of now there are no powers of ECI to fix ceiling limits on political parties. The 95 lakh ceiling limit expenditure incurred by a candidate on Lok Sabha elections, the 40 lakh ceiling limit on candidates for state legislature elections. That's all ceiling limits only applicable for individual candidates and not for political parties. So by knowing that this is not possible, you should be able to eliminate two. So this is gone. All the above is also gone. Either you have one and three or three. So three is correct. Even then, you are left with two options. So it's only with the knowledge of the first option whether it is right or wrong, you will get the answer right. So first answer, first question, the correct answer is option C3 only. This is there in section 11 of RPA 1951. There are so many grounds on which a person can be disqualified from contesting elections. Criminality is one such ground. Section 8 talks about if you are convicted for any offense for which the period of punishment is two or more years. In that case, you're disqualified for the next six years. So that is one ground. Disqualification on grounds of corrupt electoral practice is another ground under RPA 1951 for disqualifying candidates from contesting elections. Similarly, there is also another ground, which is disqualification on grounds of non-filing of election expenses. That can also be a ground of disqualification. So who does the disqualification? For non-filing of election expenses alone, ECI is the competent authority. Whereas other disqualification, it is not ECI, it is done by the president. On corrupt electoral practice, disqualification on conviction for offenses. President is the competent authority. Whereas when it comes to non-filing of election expenses, the appropriate authority to disqualify a person happens to be the election commission of India. So this is right. So option C is the right answer. I don't think UPIC will ask a direct question on who are the authorities who will elect, who will choose their election commissioners. And three authorities will be given, prime minister, leader of opposition, chief justice. It's a very simple question. Everybody will know the answer. So if at all it asks a difficult question, it will only go to the peripheral area surrounding elections and it may ask. And one such question is this. Okay, we move on to the next question. So this is question number two. Who among the following can remove the disqualification of a member disqualified from contesting elections under section eight of RPA 1951? Okay, basically why I have taken this question is because of Rahul Gandhi's disqualification. It is a recent current of us. So most probably it will capture the attention of UPSC. And now on appeal, the disqualification itself has been stayed. But still there has been an order disqualifying Rahul Gandhi from his membership of Noxaba. So who can remove the disqualification? Once a person is disqualified using section eight of RPA 1951. So whose competent authority? Okay, president. Supreme Court on election petition, CCCCA. Okay, all these are wrong answers. The correct answer is election commission of India. Okay, removing the disqualification, the powers under RPA 1951 is only in the hands of election commission of India. And that too, for every other disqualifications other than disqualification on grounds of corrupt electoral practice. For if a person is disqualified on grounds of corrupt electoral practice, there's no way the disqualification can be removed. For other disqualifications, yes, it is possible. And the power is conferred in the hands of election commission of India as per RPA 1951. Okay, it is not the president. Supreme Court on an election petition, election petition is only to decide on election disputes between two candidates who have contested elections. Supreme Court has no role in disqualifying a person or removing a disqualification. Supreme Court has a role only in conviction for offense. Later, once convicted, president issues in order of disqualification. So removing that period of disqualification. This is what happened in the year 2019 when the Sikkim chief minister, the former chief minister of Sikkim, he was convicted on graft charges, on corruption charges. He was disqualified for six years, but election commission had removed the period of disqualification. Then it became a controversial issue as that can sit a wrong precedent. It makes a mockery of the entire law itself. So there were a lot of discussions going on surrounding that. So as per RPA 1951, the competent authority to remove the period of disqualification is election commission of India. Okay, now we move on. Next question. So correct answer, ECI. Question number three, what are the benefits available to political parties registered with the election commission of India under RPA 1951? So let's see how many can get this question right. Okay, I'll give the right answer for this question. Basically, all these statements are asked with respect to RPA 1951. Okay, this is regarding the powers and functions of election commission in registering political parties. This is basically a question on how RPA tries to regulate political parties as such. So we have section 29 of RPA 1951, which deals with political parties. Okay, and when you read section 29 of RPA 1951, it says any party, even without getting themselves registered with election commission can also contest elections. It is not mandatory that a political party should be registered with election commission. Okay, tomorrow I can form a political party without even getting it registered, I can still contest elections. But only if I get myself registered with ECI, I can avail certain benefits. The need for registration is to comply with transparency norms. Okay, because once I get registered with election commission, I have to follow whatever election commission dictates upon the functioning of political party. I have to make certain disclosures. I have to be compliant with certain practices. So as to let the voter get informed about where I get my funds, where I spend my funds, right? So election commission will have some supervision over me if my political party is registered with election commission. Okay, so as per section 29 of RPA 1951, first statement is right. Only if a political party is registered with election commission of India, it can receive funds from corporate and from entities, private entities. Okay, I think now the chat box itself is enabled, so I request you all to type in the chat box. Okay, question and answer, it's not convenient for me to go and scroll it. See if the chat box is enabled and yes. Okay, all right. So the first statement is actually correct. Okay, only registered political parties can receive contributions from private companies. The statement is right. This is right. Candidates of such parties are entitled to the use of reserved symbols in Lok Sabha elections. No, reserved symbols are only given to recognized parties. Okay, not for every registered party. So only for national and for state parties, parties which are recognized as either national parties or state parties, only they are entitled to use of reserved symbols, not simply for registered parties. And this is also given only for recognized parties and not for registered parties. It's only for national parties and state parties which are so recognized by election commission during the time of elections, a copy of electoral rules will be freely provided by the election commission for individuals as well as for candidates belonging to registered parties. They cannot get this facility. So these are all some of the features of RP1951. So the correct answer for this question is one only. Okay, so from election part, we have three questions and these are the answers. So we'll move on to the next area. Next team is regarding presidential elections. Last year, in the month of July, the presidential elections were conducted, which is Draupadi Murmu was elected as the president of India. So I don't think UPSC will ask you a question as in, what is the electoral method for electing president of India, proportional representation, single transferable vote, such easy questions, don't think UPSC will ask. And already in the past, in one of the problems, a question regarding the vote value of MLA MP, that was also exhausted, right. So when we think about what possible more areas can be asked as questions. UPSC can probably ask certain interesting facts about presidential elections because UPSC has asked such kind of facts in the past, like Mr. Devilal had contested from more than two constituencies. That was one prelims question of the year 2021 prelims. So UPSC can play with certain facts as well. So regarding presidential elections, I have taken two questions, one which tests the procedures that are involved in presidential elections. Okay, so this is the question. Consider the following statements in the context of election petitions filed after elections to the office of the president of India. So basically, election petitions are filed to challenge the correctness of the outcome of elections, presidential elections. Okay, so based on that, this is a question that has been framed. Let me see how many can get this answer right. Okay, right. Some of you have got the answer right. The petition should be filed within a period of 45 days is wrong. It should be filed within a period of 30 days and not 40 days. Okay, whereas when it comes to election petitions, for elections to Lok Sabha, state assembly and all, you have a 45 day period. After the results are declared, you have 45 day period, but when it comes to presidential election, where is it given? Is it given in the constitution itself? No, the constitution does not talk about the fine nuances of presidential election. It is left to the act of parliament. So parliament has made the election to the office of president and vice president act. We have a separate act for the purpose. It is that act which governs all these areas. Okay, so the election petition should be filed within a period of 30 days and not 45. Yes, election petition can be filed by the candidate as well as the seconder's proposers. Okay, those who backed the presidential candidate who expressed their support. The 50 members who are the proposers of a particular candidate. So any of those, sorry, not proposers, any elector, so it is the elected MP and the MLA. From the electoral college, any member can present an election petition. Same is the case with the election petitions for election disputes in Lok Sabha state assembly elections. Let's say I contest a Lok Sabha election. I lose the elections. I can file the election petition or any of the elector of my constituency can also file. Same is the case here also. The presidential candidate or it could even be the electors to the presidential election who are none but the MLAs and the MPs. So they can also file the election petition. So this is right. The petition can be presented before Supreme Court only. This is correct. This is given in the constitution itself. Only Supreme Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to try disputes regarding elections for the president of India. So two statements are correct. Two statements only. Option is B. B is the right answer. So this can be one way of how UPSE can make the question regarding presidential elections slightly on the difficult side. So now we move on. Let's see how many can get this question right. The chat box has been enabled. So please type it in the chat box. Okay, don't type it in the question and answer section. Okay, let's say the first statement is a fact. Okay, this is a fact and we're not very sure about it. Constitution of India prescribes 50 electors as proposes while a candidate files nomination papers. This is not given in the constitution of India. It is given in the elections to the office of president and vice president act. Okay, not provided in the constitution. The number can be easily changed. Initially, there was no concept of proposers. I think it is only in the third or fourth presidential election slowly the concept of proposers came into existence because a lot of non-serious candidates started filing nominations for presidential elections. Okay, so that is why to discredit such non-serious candidates, the concept of proposers was brought into existence. So not given in the constitution. Okay, and Neelam Sanjeev Reddy was the only candidate to elect Anna Post to the office of president of India is a correct statement. He was the only person who was elected to the office of president, Anna Post. Okay, and first question, you should know the timeline. Okay, Radha Krishnan was the first, second president. Sorry, sorry, that is Rajendra Prasad for the third time. So possibly in sixties, Radha Krishnan would have contested elections. Okay, but Fakrudin Ahmad is in the later period during the emergency and during those times. So there is no relationship between these two people at all. Okay, so they were presidents at very different points of time. So there's no way you can use such kind of logic also if you do not know the exact fact. Okay, so select the correct statements. So three only is the correct answer for this question. Okay, all right, we move on. So these are, who knows, UPSC can ask these kind of facts also in question, the examination. Okay, out of all these different ideas, even if there is one statement in the real exam, the purpose of this discussion is not to predict or to anticipate. This is how UPSC, this is exactly the UPSC questions that is going to happen. You are going to face. No, it's not that. We get exposed to broad areas, different, different areas surrounding the topic so that even if there is something which makes you feel the question in problems is familiar to you, that itself will give you a lot of confidence. All right, there's no guarantee that these questions are going to replicate in problems, but there is no harm in discussing all possible variations from based on which questions can be asked. Okay, and the next theme is about clemency powers of the president. We have had a lot of issues going on with respect to this Rajiv Gandhi assassins, right, pay-revalence case where the president was delaying disposing the mercy petition. The Supreme Court had to intervene and rectify the injustice. So finally Supreme Court used its powers under 142 and it left pay-revalent to go free. Right, so this sparks a debate on what is the correct prompt use of president's clemency powers. So based on that a few questions have been chosen. So let's see if you can get this answer right. Okay, one correct answer up to now. Not many right answers. See article 20 is basically a protection against double jeopardy. Right, you cannot be convicted for the same offense twice. You cannot be punished for the same offense twice. It's simple. Okay, first an accused acquitted by a lower court being convicted by a higher court on appeal. It's a part of the same case that court is yet to punish you. Okay, it's not two different cases, not two different instances when the same offense is being tried. No, first court has not even punished you. It has acquitted you completely. Okay, but there could be a error in the way the case was disposed. So the state would have gone on appeal. So it's not that a second trial is being taken up. No, the correctness of the first trial is what is being examined by the appellate court. So this would not amount to double jeopardy. Okay, so first statement, no, it's a part of the same trial only. It's not that you are once again subjected to a second trial. Okay, and this is also not an example of double jeopardy because there could be mistake, there could be gross procedural violations in the lower court, which leads to injustice being given. So that is why the correctness of the procedures of the lower court is challenged in high court or in Supreme Court. And since the procedures were not followed properly, the outcome of the case itself is completely quashed. And a trial once again starts. Okay, it's not that punishment was given. And a second time, another new punishment is going to be given or anything. Okay, so these two do not amount to double jeopardy in the first place. So it is not violative of article 20, whereas Supreme Court has clearly mentioned in many cases. Okay, even in Rajiv Gandhi assassins case, the Supreme Court's line of judgment was they are death row convicts, they have been given death punishment in 92 or 93. And they have filed their mercy petition and the mercy petition has been pending for 26-27 years. So basically they have served two life imprisonments, almost two life imprisonments they have served. And now if their mercy petition is denied, rejected, if they are now put to death, that would amount to double jeopardy. Once you're punishing them with life imprisonment and now you're punishing them with death. So that is why Supreme Court had commuted their punishments. Okay, so yes, inordinate delay, unexplainable malified delay Okay, in disposing mercy petition, this would definitely amount to violation of article 20. Okay, so three only is the correct answer. All right, move on. Okay, power of pardon available to the president of India. Okay, no right answers until now. It's all wrong. Okay, you all know this is a wrong statement. Both are powers given under constitution. One is article 72, other one is article 161. So these are constitutionally sanctioned powers in the hands of the head of executive of both the union and the state governments. Okay, first statement is wrong. We eliminate this. Okay, second, governor cannot grant pardon to death row convicts. There is a recent Supreme Court judgment in the month of 2021 August, I think, where Supreme Court has clearly given a judgment that the power of granting pardon also lies in the hands of governor, just that the death should have been given under a state law, not under a union law. I know this is something contradicting with your Lakshmikant, but this is what is the reason Supreme Court judgment, maybe you can have a look at it. Okay, Supreme Court is very clear. It has said that governors do possess the power of granting pardon even to death row convicts, just that if the punishment was given under state law. Okay, so this is a correct statement. Sorry, this is a wrong statement. Governor cannot grant pardon wrong. Third, a mercy petition once rejected by the president can be petitioned before the governor of the state. Yes, that is correct. This is the outcome of Maruram versus Union of India. Okay, in the Maruram is Union of India. The Supreme, in this case, the Supreme Court has clearly given a judgment saying that just because one executive to one head of the executive, see, there are two different governments. One is the center, the other one is state. Just because one authority has rejected doesn't mean that the other authority should not be petitioned with mercy petition. Okay, so let's say I commit a crime and I'm punished under a state law, I'm given death punishment or I'm given a life imprisonment punishment. Okay, so I can, if it is a state law, I can only file before the governor. Okay, let's say it's a punishment of death. If it's a punishment of death, I can file a mercy petition before the governor as well as the president. Okay, let's say I file before the president. President has rejected by mercy petition. Still, I have remedy in the form of filing a second mercy petition before the governor. So this is an outcome of Maruram's case. All right, so third statement is actually correct. So three only is the right answer. So we move on next area. Okay, a lot of discussion debates has been going on with respect to all these areas, okay, about the rights of minority groups of people, sexual minority, religious minority, okay, and homosexuals. So let's have some discussion about that. We'll see the question and based on that we'll have further discussion. Okay, which of the following international human rights instrument explicitly recognizes the right to privacy? Putaswamy judgment had given a lot of clarification on the position of right to privacy, whether it is absolute or can it be interfered with by the state, right? But I don't think any questions have been asked about privacy in the last two years. Okay, maybe there was one question asked about right to privacy forms a part of which article, article 19, 17, 21, one such question was asked. But beyond that, no tricky questions were asked by UPSC. Okay, so this could be one such tricky question, which are the following international human rights instruments explicitly recognizes the right to privacy. And let me tell you, you can get the answer right, even though you may not know any of these international instruments, you have to think about the concept of privacy and which fundamental right is it related to, based on that you'll be able to get this. Okay, many right answers. The answer is one and two. Okay, privacy is an essential part of liberty, right? So, when it comes to liberty, liberty from whom it is from the state, you as a citizen has to be protected, right? The state should not be very intrusive in interfering with the individual. Because whatever phone calls I make, if the state is able to have a record of all that, there's always a fear, which will prevent me from raising my opinion against the state. I always have a fear that what does the state exposes me, correct? So, in that case, I will not even be able to speak frankly, openly against the critically against the state. So, I'm not able to exercise my political and civil rights, right? The freedom of speech and expression is a part of political civil rights, which is all a larger part of human rights, correct? So, with that thought, you can get, yes, if it is an instrument on human rights, definitely there is a possibility that it should be there. Civil and political rights, definitely it is there. In both these international instruments, you will have very similar provisions to our chapter on fundamental rights. You will have the freedom of speech and expression. You will have the freedom from arbitrary arrests, okay? Similarly, you will have the freedoms at least in our constitution, the right to privacy is not explicitly given anywhere. It has been brought in because of certain case laws. It has been made as a part of Article 21. But all these international instruments and all, right to have a private life, right to be not interfered into one's personal life by the state, these are all explicitly given provisions because these are Western democracies where the consciousness of individual rights is even more stronger, correct? So, that is why you will find both one and two having provisions regarding privacy. It's, I don't think it is, you can only think commonsensically, okay? So, right of child is something different. For a child, we cannot really think about privacy and all that. Privacy is a concept, I think, which we apply only to adults, okay? Not completely for child. Maybe, yeah, for child protection, protection from being stigmatized, we save the identity of victim from being disclosed and all that. But these kind of, there is no explicit mention of right to privacy as such in any of these other instruments. Only in these two, we do have one and two. We move on. Next, this question has been taken in the context of the demand that is currently ongoing regarding homosexuals right to also have a marital life, okay? So, because Special Marriage Act only recognizes the right of individuals of two different communities, male and female, to marry each other. The word person as given in Special Marriage Act, does it involve two persons belonging to the same sex or not? It is now up to the Supreme Court to interpret and give a solution. So, based on that, this question has been chosen, okay? Let's see if we can get this right. Both, okay, A. See, this we may not know, but we can only guess, okay? There is a possibility that right to marry might find a place and the most important international document on human rights, okay? Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. It is, as an inspiration from that, many other countries have made their respective chapters on fundamental rights. So, there is a possibility, so we can only go in such a way and get it right, okay? In India, it is not simply a legal right, but after Supreme Court judgments, it is also a part of Article 21, okay? So, it is not, it may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it has been recognized by Supreme Court as a constitutional right. Nobody can deny any person the right to marry of their own choice, okay? Because it has been now made as a part of Article 21 in various judgments. Just that whether it also applies to homosexual couples or not is the question now before the Supreme Court, okay? It may not be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it has been recognized by Supreme Court as a constitutional right. It's not, so there is a difference. Legal rights are secondary compared to constitutional rights. Legal rights can be easily tampered with. Constitutional rights not so easy. So, right to marry enjoys the status of a constitutional right. So, this is a wrong statement, okay? So, one only is the correct answer, right? Hadiya case, okay? So, we move on next, okay? Anti-defection law. So, we have a big constitutional question before the Supreme Court about interpretation of 10th schedule provisions, right? So, there is a possibility of questions being asked. So, this is a simple question. Next question might be slightly challenging, okay? Provisions regarding anti-defection law was introduced during the Prime Minister's of Mrs. Indira Gandhi is wrong. It was during Raju Gandhi's period. 10th schedule was even added, not during Indira Gandhi's period. First statement is wrong. Second statement is correct. There are certain exemptions that are applicable. Exemptions are applicable to speaker, deputy speaker and the deputy chairman of Lok Sabha and Raju Sabha, similarly for state legislatures as well. So, all the presiding officers which includes a deputy speaker of Lok Sabha, they enjoy certain exemptions. They can even resign from the political party on whose ticket they have contested and they have won an entry into the house, okay? It's something not only applicable to the speaker, it is applicable to all these presiding officers, okay? So, second statement is right. This is a simple question, not very difficult. So, we'll move on. The next question, okay? The question is asking which are the following statements are incorrect about anti-defection law provisions in the 10th schedule of the Constitution of India, okay? CE, all right? Incorrect, no? Breach of privileges makes a member of parliament liable to be disqualified under the provisions of anti-defection law, wrong? Breach of privileges will be dealt in a separate privileged motion has nothing to do with anti-defection law, okay? A member disqualified can be appointed as a minister after he has got himself reelected to that house. Yes, even though various bodies, various commissions in the past have given recommendation on anybody who's disqualified should not be made as a minister throughout the tenure of the house, but that is not what the present anti-defection law provisions of the Constitution say, okay? So, right now, a person if he's disqualified, he has to once again contest selection. If he's able to win and get entry into the same house, then yes, there is no bar on appointing him as the minister. So, second statement, a member disqualified can be appointed as a minister after he has got himself reelected to that house is the correct statement. Anti-defection law provisions disqualify a member of parliament on grounds of holding office of profit, no? That is a constitutional provision. Constitution says it is not in the in 10th schedule, okay? It is there in the articles regarding parliament union legislature from 79 to 123. In between that, you will have those provisions where if you hold office of profit, in that case, you will be disqualified from being a member of parliament, okay? Nothing to do with the anti-defection law. So, one and three are wrong statements, okay? So, C is the right answer. So, many of you have got it right. So, the present debate that is going on centered around anti-defection law is with respect to Maharashtra issue, where she was saying a big group, okay? More than two-thirds of the members of Shiv Sena party, they wanted to go and join with BJP. They wanted to become alliance partners BJP, whereas Uddhav Thakre led faction, they did not want it to, okay? Now that both the factions have split, one section went and joined with BJP, okay? And while this was happening itself, the then deputy speaker of Maharashtra assembly had sent notices to this Shinde faction, okay? Notices why you should not be removed on grounds of defection, okay? But immediately Shinde went to Supreme Court and got a stay saying that the deputy speaker has given me only 48 hours, okay? Even in previous Supreme Court judgments, a period of seven days notice has to be given. So, 48 hours is too less. And he was able to get the notice of speaker stayed by the Supreme Court. And in the meanwhile, the governor of Maharashtra had conducted a flow test because of which Uddhav Thakre had to resign as chief minister. Now Shinde and BJP, they were able to team up together, former government, okay? And after that, now what is the issue pending before the Supreme Court? The issue is Shiv Sena, Shinde faction says that we are the majority rival faction. He is the minority rival faction, okay? And we are the majority. So, we are who real Shiv Sena is. He is the faction basically, okay? He is, Uddhav Thakre is the faction who have split from this group. Uddhav Thakre is the one who should be disqualified and not us. But the provisions of anti-defection law, it says that a party has to go and merge with another party. Only then they can be safeguarded from being disqualified. Now, the biggest question before Shiv Sena faction of Ignach and Day, and election commission has also decided that Ignach and Day faction is the real Shiv Sena, okay? Now, the question before Ignach and Day is, can they remain independently as Shiv Sena legislators or should they go and compulsorily merge themselves with BJP? Why? Because anti-defection law provisions say a party should merge itself if it breaks, okay? Only if it merges, then it can avail the exemption. So, now there is a constitutional bench which has been formed in Supreme Court which is looking into the matter, okay? So, even in the course of hearing the arguments, the Chief Justice of India has expressed his opinion, whether it is majority faction or minority faction, the wording of the constitution has opened that whichever faction it is, they have to merge themselves. If they merge themselves, the problem is Shiv Sena legislators will no longer be Shiv Sena legislators. They have to take up the identity of BJP MLAs. Shiv Sena identity is completely gone, okay? So, it's a constitutional case pending before the Supreme Court, whether it is the smallest faction or every, both the factions, whether it is majority or minority factions to avail the exemption, should they, should a compulsorily a merger should be affected or not? That is the case that is pending before the Supreme Court, which is yet to be decided, all right? We move on. Next. Okay. These are themes regarding secularism about the Hijab issue, uniform civil court. So, all these are going on. So, you know what is the Hijab ban that was imposed in Karnataka in schools and it was challenged in High Court. High Court had upheld the ban. Then again, it went on challenge to Supreme Court. Supreme Court, it was a split verdict by a tuition pinch of judges. Two judges have looked, listened to the matter. One said, yes, government is right. Others said, government is not correct in imposing the ban. Okay. So, we have such issues going on with Hijab and also the talk of bringing in uniform civil court and already there's a talk going on in various states that they will try to bring in uniform civil court. So, these are issues that are going on. So, let's have a look at the question and find out what is the issue. Basically, wearing hijab comes under freedom of religion. So, can the state impose restrictions on the free practice of religion or not? That is the essential question, right? Based on that, this question has been framed. What are the correct provisions regarding right to freedom of religion in India? Okay. The restrictions to the practice of religion can be imposed by judiciary and not by the legislatures. This is the wrong answer. Okay. Judiciary will only check the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the state. It is the state, state means parliament, union legislature, union executive, state legislature, state executive and other authorities. So, it is the state which can impose restrictions and the reasonableness of the restrictions will be tested by the judiciary. Okay. So, the first statement is wrong. When it comes to entire fundamental rights chapter or wherever the restrictions can be placed on the exercise of fundamental rights, it is the response of the state and not that of judiciary to impose restrictions. Okay. Second statement is right. When you read the articles from 25 to 28 regarding freedom of religion, you will find that these freedoms are not only available to individuals but also to denominations, religious denominations, groups of individuals as well. Denominations can hold property, acquire property, administer property. Okay. So, the freedom of religion is also available to denominations and groups not only simply to individuals. So, second statement is right. First statement is wrong. So, two only is the correct answer. Okay. See, UPSC will not ask you a directly a question. Wearing of ban on hijab is violative of which of the fundamental right because it is deemed to be not violative of any fundamental right. Okay. Because that is what the judgment of high court and supreme court. So, there is no way a direct question on hijab issue or anything can be asked. Only indirectly whether you understand the concept of restrictions placed, understand the concept of secularism. Okay. Questions can be asked about the difference between Indian secularism and the western secularism. So, all those are the areas how UPSC can test the underlying concept in this issue. So, next let me see how many can get this question right. This is a challenging question. Okay. All those who have gone with D, you are all correct. Okay. Because you see, Judi Shree has come up with all these principles in a different lot of cases. Okay. Those are all principles to test state action, whether the state action is correct or not. Okay. What is doctrine of proportionality? That is a state action should only be proportional to the problem. Okay. Let's say taking out Ganesh Pooja, right, Vinayagya Chaturthi processions outside a mosque can become a law and order problem. Does it make sense to completely ban Vinayagya Chaturthi processions throughout the city? That is excessive act. Whereas, you can simply limit, can change the route, not allow Ganesh Chaturthi Pooja happening just outside that mosque alone. This is a proportional act outright banned versus a regulated movement of the procession. Right. So, that is what is called as proportionality. So, if someone wants to take out Ganesh Pooja as a part of their freedom of religion and if the state wants to impose restrictions on that, the restriction should be proportional to the threat and problem. It should not be excessive. So, yes, Judi Shree uses doctrine of proportionality to evaluate state action, the restrictions that is imposed by the state, whether it is proportional to the problem or not. It is used as a test. Doctrine of essential religious practice, of course, it is used as a test. State decides to ban Hijab in the schools. Hijab is considered to be a non-essential part of Islam. Okay. There are multiple high court judgments, supreme court judgments where the judges have interpreted that Hijab doesn't form an essential practice of Islam. But if the state puts a ban on practice of Namas totally, you cannot even practice Namas. Okay. That will not be accepted because Namas is an essential part of Islam. You have to practice it five times a day or whatever the religion says. Correct. Similarly, a Hindu cannot be restricted from going and worshipping in a temple, chanting mantras to deities is an essential part of Hinduism. The state cannot interfere with that. Okay. But the state can always interfere and say law and order problem is there. So you are not allowed to take processions. Taking processions is not an essential part of Hinduism. Okay. Like that. And what is doctrine of harmonious construction? Okay. For example, to take the case of Hijab, it's a conflict between fundamental rights versus or not Hijab issue. Okay. You take the case of sacrifice of cow, sacrifice of cow during Bakrid. Okay. During Bakrid celebrations, you want to slaughter cow, sacrifice cow. It is a conflict between article 25. Article 25 gives you the freedom of practice of religion. Whereas DPSP says the state shall take steps to protect milk cattle. Right. So there is a conflict between these two provisions. Okay. So the state, because it has a responsibility to protect milk cattle, it will place restrictions that you cannot sacrifice cow. Okay. If at all it makes such restrictions, it is violating such state restrictions violate article 25. Okay. But still the state restriction will be held as valid. Why? Because it gives effect to a DPSP. That is how Supreme Court tries to harmoniously interpret two conflicting provisions of the constitution. Okay. So yes, even doctrine of harmonious construction is also a yardstick against which state restrictions on the free practice of religion gets tested. Okay. So all the above is the right answer. Okay. So some of you have got it right. Okay. This is regarding uniform civil code. So based on that, I have framed the special. Okay. See, those who are going with the D, you are just not being careful. Okay. Article 25 is freedom of religion. Right. You can manage your own religious affairs. Okay. You can manage your own ways of how to marry, how to divorce, how to succeed, how to inherit property. Okay. All these comes under one community's own practice of their own affairs, their own religion. Right. The uniform civil code is actually interfering with that. Okay. So article 25 cannot be the answer. How can it be the answer? So four should not be the answer. One, two, one, two and three. A uniform civil code gives a lot of rights. It makes men and women equal when it comes to personal loss, marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance. Right. It is making men and women equal. So definitely 14 and 15. It is upheld. Okay. Now what about 21? It is because personal loss do not allow a person of one religion to marry a person of another religion. Okay. There could be sanctions that follow. A marriage between a Hindu and a Muslim might not even be recognized as per the Muslim personal laws and marriage. That is why we have a special marriage act, which is a uniform civil code basically on marriage issues. Okay. So a person right to marry. Okay. It is a part of article 21. Personal laws on marriage do not allow an individual to exercise the free choice of marrying. Whereas if you have a uniform civil code, yes, it allows people to marry freely. So 14, 15, 21, all three are upheld. If only we have a uniform civil code on personal loss. Okay. So it's a simple question. You just have to think and have to eliminate 25 can definitely not be that 25 allows for every religion to have their own laws. But we're trying to move beyond that by giving effect to the DPSP, which mandates, which tries to bring in uniform civil code. Okay. So this is how you'll have to think for this question. Okay. So the next theme is regarding reservation. Yeah. We have had the Constitutional Amendment Act passed, which provides reservation for economically weaker sections and which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Okay. So UPSC will definitely not ask you a question who are eligible to avail EWS reservation, person with the land of so and so area, income criteria, that is all not UPSC's way of asking questions. Okay. UPSC goes to the Constitution, finds out constitutional provisions which supports the idea of reservation itself. Okay. So this is a way of how UPSC probably can ask questions. Affirmative actions such as reservations for SC and ST by the state can be attributed to which of the following parts of the Constitution. Okay. Most of the answers are right. Correct answers. All the above D is the right answer. See, Article 15, Article 16, they provide for safeguards to state policy that provides reservation. Okay. Reservation is not a fundamental right. Article 15 and 16 do not ensure a mandatory reservation system for OBCs and SCs and STs. 15 and 16 say if reservation is provided by the state, then that shall be protected. It shall not be challenged as violation to write off equality. So yes, this, it is by virtue of provisions and fundamental right in Article 15 and 16, we do have affirmative action policies. Direct to principle, yes, we do have a direct to principle which says, which puts a duty on the state to ensure the educational and economic interests of the backward class of citizens, specifically the schedule cast and schedule tribe shall be protected. Okay. That is why the state first came up with reservation policy for OBCs, the Madras Geo. Okay. First, which was passed to give reservation for OBCs in government colleges, which was challenged in Champakam Durai Rajan case. That is all because not because of any fundamental right provision. It's because of DPSP, which I'll ask, which puts a responsibility on the state to ensure educational and economic interests of backward class of citizens, especially schedule cast, schedule tribe. So yes, there are provisions in DPSP which provides support for reservation and we do have special provisions for SCs, STs, Anglo Indians. Now we don't have for Anglo Indians with SCs and STs. Right. We have special provisions in these article 330 onwards, 330 to 334, 335. Those are the articles which talks about special provisions for certain classes. In those articles, you have reservations for SCs and STs in state legislative assembly as well as Lok Sabha. Okay. And the claims of SC, ST in employment avenues, employment matters, that is also given. So it is all these three which are the reasons which support affirmative actions in the form of reservations. Okay. All the above is the right answer. Okay. The next question. See, it is simple. If you know what to be eliminated, the answer is simple. It may look like a lot of numbers and all, but it's actually also difficult. A can never be the answer because, okay, 103rd is the amendment which provides for EWS. What are you, I think you're not thinking. Okay. If you're thinking that 103rd amendment act is reason why we have reservations, definitely A should be there. So these cannot be the answer. It's a simple question. Either C or D. Okay. Which of the following amendments have introduced provisions regarding reservation as a means of affirmative actions for the weaker sections? Okay. So I'm sorry, the choices is not correct. It should be 1, 2, 3 and 4. Okay. Is it correct now? C. Yeah. 101st is GST. This is nothing to do with reservation, but all these are some important landmark constitutional amendments. Right. 103rd is for EWS. First amendment act. Can you remember? It introduced reservations for article 15 sub clause 4 was introduced. Okay. So this is very important for reservations for socially, educationally backward class of citizens for SCs, STs in educational institutions. So this is important. 77th, 73rd, these are all, 73rd is regarding panchayats, reservations in panchayats. Correct. Reservations for SCs, STs in panchayats. 77th is regarding reservations in promotions with consequential seniority, which is there in article 16. All these were introduced. So even if you would not know, this is something that is excusable. You need not know point number three, but you should know 101st is GST. Some important amendments. No, you should have an idea about it. 101st, if you know it is GST, you can exclude it. If you exclude it, five should not be there in answer. D should not be there. B should not be there. And one should be there. So this is also not there. It's very simple to get the answer, just that I had not given the correct option then. So except for five, all other amendments have relevance with reservations. Okay. You should think like that. Okay. Next is regarding Supreme Court. Okay. So we have had a lot of issues going on where the law minister has expressed his displeasure with the present Collegium system. So and already there was an attempt made in the form of 99th Amendment Act, which was struck down by the judiciary. Right. So based on that, a few questions have been chosen. Okay. Okay. So issues regarding judiciary. I cannot confine it narrowly only to appointment of judges issues, but certain other issues also which have been prominently in news in the recent days. So regarding PIL, there was a dispute and it went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court had given some judgments regarding the judicious use of PIL. Based on this, this question has been chosen. Okay. PILs cannot be filed. You know, what is the history of public interest litigation? I don't want to get going to that. Jose Inara cartoon case first brought the idea of PIL, okay, where a public interest litigation was filed on behalf of the prison inmates in the state of Bihar. So it was brought to the note of the Supreme Court. Then Supreme Court gave relief, improved the conditions of living for prison inmates in Bihar. So we cannot discuss about every aspect of PIL, but PIL was recently in news because the Supreme Court had made it clear that PILs cannot be filed by persons whose interests are affected due to state action or inaction. So let's say there are thousand bus drivers, okay? We are all a part of bus drivers. I'm also a bus driver. State timely does not sanction our gratuity amounts when we got retired, okay? If that is the case, we can all go and file individual repetitions before the court. That my right to equality is violated. Somebody else is given a favorable treatment. I am not given my due share. The state is discriminating against me. I can file a repetition saying my fundamental right is violated. But I cannot go and file a public interest litigation for all the drivers. But if I'm not a driver, let's say I'm a conductor, okay? I can go and now file a public interest litigation on behalf of someone else. The essential idea is those whose interests lie in the litigation should not be a part of public interest litigation, okay? So this is something you should remember. So if your interest was also affected, then you would not have the right to file a public interest litigation. You can file your respective repetitions. So this is wrong. This is right. So Supreme Court in the same judgment has asked all the high courts to devise their own rules regarding how to deal with public interest litigations. Every high court can have their own procedure. How many judges should dispose of public interest litigation on what day, what should be the form in which the court can receive petitions. So regarding their own procedures, the high courts, every high court can make their own rules to deal with PILs. So two only is the right answer. This is something that happened in the last six months only, okay? Maybe you can check out and read more on this. So B, Bombay is the right answer. Please explain PIL again. PIL I cannot explain again because we don't have the time. Public interest litigation is basically how you move the court on behalf of someone else whose fundamental right has been violated because the state has failed to take care of their needs. That is public interest litigation. Let's say a group of poor people are there. They are not given proper housing facility because of which they are just sleeping in the cold in the nighttime and the pavements. So their fundamental right of housing, right to have a shelter has been violated because the state is completely blind towards their needs. So I'm rich. I'm not affected by the state inaction. Now I can go and file a petition in the court saying that the fundamental right of Article 21 of those people have been violated because of state inaction. I am moving the court on behalf of someone else because there is a larger social interest which is being affected, okay? So if I was also a part of the group of people, I cannot go and file a PIL. I can only go and file an individual petition on my own grievance. That's the idea, okay? You cannot be a person who has been affected. First statement is not correct. Okay, PILs cannot be filed. Oh yeah, it's right, right. PILs, correct. PILs cannot be filed by persons whose interests are affected due to state action. First statement is right, second statement is right. So see, both is the right answer. Okay, next. This is regarding the collegium system. Article 32 supports PILs. That is all fine. Why are you bringing all that here? Okay, my only idea is who can file that petition? If I am aggrieved by the state inaction, I cannot file a public interest litigation. I can file my fundamental right as being violated. This is what Supreme Court has said in a recent judgment, okay, where it was an appeal from Karnataka, okay? It was an appeal from Karnataka High Court. And the Karnataka High Court had also taken the same line. Karnataka High Court had dismissed the petition, public interest litigation that was filed on behalf of a class of people. And the person who filed the petition was also part of that same group who were affected. Karnataka Government dismissed it. Then they went on an appeal to Supreme Court. Supreme Court had also dismissed. And it said that person whose interest is affected cannot file public interest litigation. And it asked each High Court to come up with its own procedures. You don't have to prove Locust Standi, sir, in PIL. PIL is, it happened only after Locust Standi has been liberalized. You don't have to be the person whose interest has been affected. Okay. So if I go and file a petition on behalf of some other people, my interest is not at all affected. There is no concept of Locust Standi only in PIL. It has been liberalized. Okay. Moving question number 18. Consider the following statements regarding Collegium System for the Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court. Okay. The Collegium was inserted into the Constitution by an amendment. No. It is as a result of three judges cases and not because of a constitutional amendment. No judge of the Supreme Court outside the Collegium is to be consulted and recommending a suitable candidate to the president. This is wrong. Okay. In the third judges case, if you actually read the entire points of third judges case, you'll understand the Collegium is CJI plus four senior most judges. Let's say the name of a judge who's being now considered is someone who's completely unfamiliar to all the five judges. They have no idea about the antecedents of the judge whose name is now being considered. A judge of high court is to be elevated to the Supreme Court. And the Collegium, entire Collegium, they have no idea about the antecedents, about the performance of the judge. Okay. In that case, what can they do? The third judges case has clarified, whichever other judge of the Supreme Court who happens to be from the same bar. Okay. From the same bar as that of the judge whose name is being considered. His opinion should also be elicited. Okay. So this is wrong. A judge who's not a part of the Collegium can also be consulted. Okay. Nineteenth Amendment Act had attempted to increase the number of judges in the Collegium. No. Nineteenth Amendment Act had tried to bring in a new body replacing Collegium itself. A National Judicial Appointments Commission was brought in and it was not an attempt to increase the size of Collegium. So, none of the above is the right answer. Okay. D. D is the correct answer. So, very few answers. D. All right. Move on. Okay. This is regarding a recent amendment that was brought in. A bill has been introduced for the purpose. It is yet to be enacted and to receive the presidential assent. But a bill has been introduced to make changes to the multi-state cooperative societies act of 2002. Okay. Now that is to be amended. All right. So, this is also connected to, I think two years back Supreme Court had struck down certain provisions of 97th Constitutional Amendment Act. 97th Amendment Act had introduced provisions regarding cooperatives into the Constitution. But some portions of it were struck down by the court because it interferes with the power of the state to regulate cooperatives, state cooperatives. Okay. But since then, no question was actually asked about cooperatives and all that. Even that year, last year, no question was actually asked. But now that a bill has been introduced in the parliament so as to make changes to the way multi-state cooperative societies are being regulated, it is time for us to know, get something familiar about the bill. Okay. So based on that, this question has been framed. Very good. Many correct answers. Okay. See, the purpose of the bill is to streamline the way cooperatives which are having their operations in two or more states. Okay. Those cooperatives are called as multi-state cooperatives. Whereas then there are cooperatives who have their operations only in one state. They are state cooperatives. State cooperatives are controlled, regulated by state laws. Cooperatives which are having their operations in two or more states, regulated by central law, which is multi-state cooperative societies. Basically, what is the purpose of all these acts? It is to regulate the way appointments are made to the board of directors. Okay. The board who's going to manage the decisions of the cooperative, how will all members of the cooperatives have some democratic manner of choosing the members to the board or not? Many cooperatives are actually controlled by the elites of that community alone. That is why to make sure the cooperatives are very democratic in their functioning, we have all these interventions by the government. Okay. That is one. Okay. Next is to ensure their accounts are properly audited. Okay. Their expenditures are all properly accounted for. It is to stipulate all those regulations and control over the way cooperatives function. That is why we have all these acts. Okay. So the latest amendment, if you want to read more on that, you can read the PRS. Okay. PRS brief, which we will discuss more about the provisions of the act. So, yes, the amendment provision is the bill comes up with a new fund. Okay. And what is the fund purpose for? All the sick cooperatives, they're all sick because they don't have fresh fund infusion. Okay. They are not having funds to even carry out their daily operations because of that so many cooperatives are not able to function effectively. So to ensure that they are once again revitalized, that is why government has to infuse money, but government doesn't have money. That is why the amendment is brought now so that all the profit-making cooperatives have to give certain percentage. I think one percentage of their annual profits must be pulled into the fund. Or if not one percent, then one crore, whichever is the lower amount. Okay. Whichever is lower. For example, Amul, one crore is very less. One percent of its profits might itself come to 15, 20 crores. Okay. So whichever is, sorry, whichever is higher, not lower. One percent of its annual profits are one crore. Okay. Whichever is higher, all the multi-state cooperatives, they must pull, they must form a fund. That fund will be used to support all the weak cooperatives. Okay. So that is one objective of this bill. Next is the bill prohibits government shareholding in multi-state cooperatives. No, there is no such provision. Government will always be, if it wants, the government can always infuse fund and it can also become a shareholder. Okay. So there is nothing in the bill or in the previous bill or in the present amendment bill. Nowhere is there any prohibition stopping government from becoming a shareholder in the management of a cooperative society. So this is wrong. The bill allows the merger of state cooperatives. Yes, if various sick state cooperatives which are not functioning properly, okay, if subject to the state laws, state cooperatives who has the power to regulate their affairs, it is the state government. So central government cannot unilaterally make this act and say that we will merge state cooperatives into a multi-state cooperative. That is not possible. Okay. That is why even in the amendment bill it is now given. If the state laws regarding cooperatives allows such a merger, okay, subject to the provisions of state laws, in that case, if the board of the cooperative, the board of management of the cooperative society, if they decide that we have to merge ourselves with a healthy, bigger multi-state cooperative society, then yes, it allows for merger of those cooperatives. Okay. And then there are many other points where the amendment provides for creation of ombudsman. Ombudsman is a dispute resolution authority, creation of ombudsman regarding disputes. So all those kind of other features are also there in the bill. You can have a look at it. But yes, the correct answer is 1 and 3 for this question. And then there are some issues also regarding it, which may not be asked for problems but can be asked later on means. So PRS is a go-to place to read whatever is relevant regarding this particular topic. Okay. So this is regarding the constitutional provisions regarding cooperatives. Okay. Very good. A lot of correct answers. Surprising that many of you know the correct answer for this question. Very good. So yes, these are all just constitutional provisions regarding cooperatives. Okay. You read the provisions inserted by 97th Amendment Act, which has brought in a lot of provisions regarding cooperatives. Just go and have a broad look at them. You will get the answer for this. It is not the central government. It is basically state government. State government has the power to appoint authorities for auditing the accounts of the cooperatives, not the center. Okay. For those who have said this statement, this is wrong. So some of you have said this statement also is wrong. If that is the case, may I know the correct answer? Why did you say that this statement is wrong? If state election commission is not responsible for conducting elections to co-produce societies in the state, then who is responsible then? They themselves, okay. State legislature, that's all correct. A separate body will be constituted. Correct. Okay. We have a state cooperative election commission separately. Okay. The constitution allows the state legislature to constitute a separate body. So every state legislature, they would have constitute their own body. So it is not state election commission, which has the power of holding elections to cooperate. So it is a separate state cooperative election commission. Okay. So on their own. That's very good. That's also correct. So first statement is wrong. Second statement is also wrong. Okay. So none is the correct answer. Okay. Next, federalism, center state-related issues. This year, I did not come across much federal conflicts between center and state. Last year, we had farm laws and all that. Okay. This year, we don't really have any conflicts as such between center and state or between a group of states. Of course, regular boundary disputes, resource sharing disputes, they'll all be there. But nothing prominent happening in the area of federalism in the last one year. It will be very difficult to come across a current affair. So I've chosen two questions. One is from GST council because the court in the last year's July month had given a judgment saying that GST council decisions are not binding on the states. So based on that, some question has been framed. And recently, the Zonal Council meeting was held. Okay. The Eastern Zonal Council meeting was held. These are the only things that I was able to come regarding federalism. These are the questions. The question is incorrect. I think most of you are going for correct answers. When you're exempt, please read the question correctly. Don't make all these silly mistakes which makes you repent one attempt is wasted. There will be five, six questions accumulatively if you start making all these kinds of silly mistakes where you don't notice whether it's correct or incorrect and all. Okay. It's incorrect. There are six Zonal councils in India. Is it correct? Can someone tell me? Are there six Zonal councils in India? There are only five. Are Zonal councils constitutional bodies? No, they are statutory bodies created by States Reorganization Act. Chairman of each Zonal Council is the CM of one of the member states. Is it so? No. Union Home Minister. Okay. So this is also wrong. Sikkim is not a member of the Eastern Zonal Council. Okay. This is also wrong. Sikkim is a member of Eastern Zonal Council. Okay. So the meeting of the Eastern Zonal Council was recently concluded. Okay. So you can find it out. When I was browsing about it, many UPSC websites know they are giving wrong answers. Sikkim is not a part of Eastern Zonal Council. They brought Sikkim as a northeastern state and they linked it with northeastern council. Okay. When you go through government PIB, Sikkim is also a part of Eastern Zonal Council. Okay. So all the statements are wrong. So D, all the above is the correct answer. All right. We move on. This is regarding GST. Okay. First question. I think this one I have already told you. Supreme Court's judgment. Decisions of GST councils not binding on state governments. GST councils is simply an advisory body. It can only advise the parliament as well as the states on how to make laws. Okay. Can state governments make laws related to GST? Can they do that? Yes, they can. Except for GST on interstate trade and commerce, for GST on commerce happening within that particular state. State legislatures can also make laws. So it is a power given under Article 246A of the Constitution where both parliament and state legislatures can make laws regarding GST. So state legislatures can make laws. Otherwise, why would GST council advise the state governments? It is regarding when the state governments make laws on GST, they get advice. Okay. So first statement is wrong. Second statement is correct. Okay. Either B or D. Center has a greater vote weightage in GST council than all the states combined together. Is this correct? No, not correct. Okay. Center share is only one third. All the states put together, they have two third weightage. So center cannot have more weightage than the states. So third is wrong. So only two only is the correct answer. 22 option B is the correct answer. So that's it about federalism. Okay. We move on to certain bodies and agencies which were in news. I could come across these bodies which were repeatedly news and now prime minister has also made a mention of enforcement direct trade and all. So you can expect a question about ED enforcement direct trade. Okay. So let's have a look. Two questions from this part. Bodies and agencies which are recently news. See, I really don't think election, the simplest question of election commission will be asked. Election commission is more prominent this year than last year, especially after the judgment of Supreme Court regarding appointment of election commissions. But simply asking the methodology of appointment of election commissioners would be a very simple question. I don't even have to teach you. You guys know it already. So I don't think UPSC will also make it so trivial the question. Okay. So if this is the question, what is the answer? Okay. We have multiple answers. Basically, all these are features of not of the constitution. These are all provisions of election commission, duties, functions and conditions of service act. Okay. When you read article 324 of the constitution, the constitution gives power in the hands of parliament to make law to prescribe the duties, functions and to regulate the conditions of service of the election commissioners. Okay. So these are all taken out from the act directly. Okay. So what are the correct answers? Decisions are taken by majority. That's correct. When you read the act, it says preferably by consensus. If not by consensus, then at least by majority. Okay. The chief election commissioner as the power of veto, no, not given in the act and the supreme court has decided in the case. Okay. The chief election commissioner was his union of India. It's called as the TN stations case. 90s. Supreme court has clearly decided that chief election commissioner is primus inter-parish. That is, he is the first among the equals and he doesn't have the power of vetoing the decisions taken by the other election commissioners. So you should not think his role as that of chief justice of India. Okay. No similar comparison. So this is not the case. Constitution does not prescribe it in your, it is only prescribed in the act, not in the constitution. So the correct answer is one only. A is the correct answer. Fine. We move on to the next question, which act, just search, I don't know the exact name of that election commission duties, powers, functions and conditions of service act. If possible, just search on those lines. You will get that. Okay. B, D. All right. See the nodal agency to enforce the provisions of PMLA is not income tax, the enforcement directorate. There can be no prosecution under the act unless money laundering has been committed is a correct statement. Okay. So two only is the correct answer. You should not simply choose D none. I don't know why you have gone for D. You see, without knowing, please don't attempt. Okay. And especially these kind of questions, two options have eliminated. Why do you have to simply attempt it? Okay. When you read prevention of money laundering act, there are three conditions which have to be satisfied. Only then prosecution in the court can happen. This was a news. The harsh provision of PMLA was challenged in Supreme Court. Okay. Because property attachment clauses were there. So many people, they lose control of their property, pros and pros of property gets attached. So it was challenged in the Supreme Court. It was all happening in the last eight months. Okay. Supreme Court has allowed the provisions to exist. So there is a possibility and moreover, prime minister has also made a speech about enforcement directorate. So who knows, there could be some question regarding it. It's better to skip this question. Okay. If you don't know, but see for actions to be taken under prevention of money laundering act, three conditions must be satisfied. First is there should be an illegal activity committed. Okay. What is an illegal activity? It could be sale of guns. It could be sale of drugs, opium, smuggling of animal paths. Okay. Some illegal activity should have been committed. That is why if you read the provisions of prevention of money laundering act, the act is indexed to many other acts. It is indexed to narcotics and psychotropic substances act. It is indexed to arms act. It is indexed to wildlife protection act. So first you should have done an offense under any of the different acts that are found in the schedule of prevention of money laundering act. Second, that illegal activity must have given you some money. You should have earned some money out of the illegal activity. And third, the money should have been laundered. Okay. There should have been an attempt to convert this black money into a white money because you cannot, if you do a business, you have to disclose what is the business to the income tax department. But if you smuggle, you cannot disclose what is the income. Right. So you have only black money with you. And now you make an attempt to launder it by showing it as if you have earned it from some other sources. Right. These three essential conditions, all of them should be satisfied because if you simply only have smuggled, okay, you have just smuggled, you will be prosecuted against the respective and under the respective acts, not under PMLH under prevention of money laundering act, these three conditions must be satisfied. Right. It's better to skip these kinds of questions if you're not aware of the correct answers to only be. There can be so much more features of this act. Okay. But that is not the purpose of the session where I can teach you each and every act that is in news. No, you, you, it's your responsibility to go and read further about it. Just a broad exposure to this topic. Okay. All right. So next, we have had a lot of activities going on in parliament because of a lot of recently we come across members of parliament just like that they're suspended. Okay. Because they rise protest against the ruling party in Raji Sabha, some members of Congress were suspended. So suspension of members we come across. Then Rahul Gandhi was even disqualified from being a member of Lok Sabha. When Rahul Gandhi flashed the photograph of our prime minister Modi sitting along with Adani BJP tried to bring in a privilege motion against Rahul Gandhi. Correct. And Raji Sabha had formed a committee. Okay. I forget the name of the committee, Ramacharyalu committee. He was a former secretary general of Raji Sabha under his leadership, a committee was formed to suggest reforms in Raji Sabha. These are all some recent happenings surrounding parliament. Okay. Whatever has, I was able to come across in the last one years of news regarding parliament. So based on that, a few questions have been framed. So this is a question framed because of the recommendations made by this committee formed in Raji Sabha to suggest reforms in Raji Sabha. Based on that, I have framed this question. Okay. See if you can answer this. I think it's Ramacharyalu. Okay. I'm not sure about it exactly what it is. Just spotted it once. He was a former secretary general of Raji Sabha under his leadership, maybe such a Ramacharya, maybe Telugu person, that's why Ramacharyalu. Okay. The deputy chairman is not a member of general purpose committee. It's a wrong answer. Chairman, chairman of Raji Sabha, deputy chairman, they're all a part of general purpose committee. Okay. So this is wrong. 10 year of members of the committee is for a period of one year is wrong again. Okay. It is throughout the tenure of the house unless the member resigns himself or his seat in the committee becomes vacant. Okay. So it is not a tenure of one year. It is usually, it is those committees which holds the government accountable for its actions, which has a membership of one year. Okay. Like PAC, department related standing committee, committee on government assurances. If you see in all those committees, you will have a fixed tenure. Okay. But when it comes to these kinds of committees regarding rules, making rules for the house, business advisory committee, we don't have fixed one year membership and all that. Okay. It's not for a period of one year. And members of the committee are elected by the members from amongst themselves. That is also wrong. They have to be nominated by the chairman. They are not going to be elected from amongst themselves and all. No, that is not the case. Okay. And general purpose committee does not have a maximum cap on number of members and all because it's a very interesting committee, general purpose committee. No, who are the members? Every leader of every political party is all a part of that committee. Whereas you see rules committee, business advisory committee of Raji Sabha, all that will have fixed membership 15 members, 10 members. Okay. General purpose committee, whatever political parties are there, all their leaders are all a member of the committee. Okay. So every function that is not performed by other committees will all be taken up by this general purpose committee. All three statements are incorrect. D is the right answer. You should ideally skip this question. Why are you even attempting this? Okay. Don't try to attempt everything. Just try to skip if you're not aware of it. Okay. This is regarding Lok Sabha. Question has been framed regarding many members of Lok Sabha being suspended. Chairman is also a member of general purpose committee. Only MPs are usually members of committees. Where did you learn that? Not really. To set the business of the house, who else than the chairman? The chairman has to be. Similarly, speaker has to be in Lok Sabha. Chairman of Raji Sabha has to be a member of business advisory committee. Not necessarily only MPs will be members. Okay. The speaker of Lok Sabha can suspend the member of Lok Sabha for a maximum period of 10 days only. And people are saying that it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Anybody can tell me why? Why are you saying that it is wrong? All of you are getting it right. Very surprising. So where did you learn it and why do you say it's wrong? Yeah. Throughout that session, not indefinite period, only for the entire session. Okay. Don't think it's for an indefinite period. Maximum up to the end of that session. Okay. Questions for which notices had been given by the member so suspended, how to be answered even if the member remains suspended? No. This is also incorrect. If he suspended, all the questions that he has given a notice for need not even be answered. Okay. So second statement is also wrong. None. This is regarding the procedures given in rules of procedure of Lok Sabha about suspension of members. Okay. You may have a look at rules of procedure to find out on what all grounds a member can be suspended. Okay. He can be suspended for breach of privileges. He can be suspended for unruly behavior in the house, frequent obstruction, not allowing the house to function. Okay. So just get an idea about it. Okay. Let me see if you can get this question right there. If a deputy chairman is appointed as a member of a committee, he has to be a chairman of the committee. Right. I'm not sure about it. Not sure. Maybe you can check it out from rules of procedure of Raji Sabha. MPs of Lok Sabha. Okay. This is regarding misuse and abuse of privileges. Okay. So since the privilege issue was there in news, MPs of Lok Sabha do not enjoy privileges related to speech and expression outside the parliament is correct. When you read article 105, the wording of 105 words, there shall be freedom of speech and expression in the parliament. Okay. So outside the parliament, you do not, you are just like common man. For whatever you say, you are liable for your speeches. Okay. See Raul Gandhi under defamation laws, he has been convicted. Why? Because he does not enjoy that absolute freedom of speech and expression outside the parliament. Inside the parliament, yes, he enjoys. Okay. Freedom of speech available to the members of the Lok Sabha inside the house is not an absolute freedom and can be restricted. This is also correct. Okay. Both C is the right answer. The reason is because if you read 105 of the constitution, it says subject to the other provisions of the constitution, there shall be freedom of speech and expression in the houses of parliament. So subject to other provisions. Okay. You cannot speak things that disturb communal harmony, create problems to public order. Okay. So subject to the other provisions of the constitution. So it means that yes, restrictions can be imposed by standing orders of the house, by rules of the house, or by laws made by parliament. Okay. So yes, restrictions can be imposed. It's not that a member of parliament can simply stand up and speak bad words in the parliament. That is not allowed because it is against decency and morals. Okay. So both statements are correct. So C is the answer. Okay. You want to see the 26th question. Okay. Okay. So we move on to the 28th question. It's regarding IT at IT rules, which is also news. So I'm sure you'll all, you'd have all learned about the provisions of IT rules. Why is it subjudiced before the Supreme Court now? Okay. What is the recent news about IT rules? The recent news is that central government had made even more stronger provisions in IT rules so that the central government can now have the power to fact check. Okay. Can fact check if it finds that a fact against the government is a false propaganda. It can ask Twitter or Instagram or YouTube to remove the content. If they fail to remove the content, then the safe harbour protection that these third party intermediaries enjoy under the IT Act will no longer be enjoyed by them. They can also be prosecuted for failure for sharing such hosting such content on their platforms. Right. So that is why the protests happening from the media circles that it is a attempt by the state to arm twist media. Okay. Right now, if I share a content against the government, I'm liable. Twitter is not liable, but if the government finds that this is a false propaganda against the government and if it asks Twitter to remove it, if Twitter refuses to remove, in that case Twitter itself will be prosecuted in the court. Okay. So basically they are the safe harbour protection will be taken out for Twitter if they fail to comply with it. So such kind of very tighter rules have been brought in in IT rules by the latest amendment to IT rules. So it is in use, but the question is not about the features and issues and all that, that you will have anyway studied. Okay. Slightly different question. Let's see if you can get this right. Okay. Skipped. Good. Learn to skip. It may not be rewarding in the short term, but in the long term, it will definitely reward you. Three only is the blatantly wrong answer. Okay. This is actually, this is what is IT rules? Why did the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, MATE, how, where, from where did they get the power to notify these rules? Any idea? How did the Ministry of Electronics get the power to notify these rules? It is by virtue of the IT Act. IT Act confers this power in the hands of the executive. So it is a clear example of delegated legislation. Okay. Delegated legislation is the power of lawmaking has been given away from the hands of parliament by a parliamentary law itself in the hands of a subordinate agency could be the executive. Okay. So first, it's a clear example of delegated legislation. Second, it is as a result of RBI Act. RBI Act confers the power in the hands of central government to issue a notification and declare certain currency notes as invalid. It is as a result of that central government exercises power. This is also part of this is not by virtue of any law made by parliament. This is by virtue of the constitution provision itself. Okay. This is not a power handed over by parliament in the hands of another agency. That is not the case. Okay. The power of Supreme Court to frame rules regarding the procedure for dealing with petitions in the court, all that is a power given in the constitution. Okay. Not a part of law. So one and two is the correct answer. So a few of you have got it right. The Bombay is the right answer. Okay. We move on. Last two questions. This is regarding some acts which are recently news. Okay. And one more thing. UPS in the last two, three years now, they are not asking provisions of any recently, recent legislations. That is why I have skipped and not only skipped. There were not many recent amendments or recent newly introduced bills in the last one year I was just taking. Not very important bills have been introduced or anything. Okay. So if you can come across such bills and study, then you please study the features and all, but I don't know to what extent will be useful in your exam. However, I have framed some questions from recently introduced amendments to certain acts. Okay. One is the electricity act amendment bill. What is the answer? Yes. This is how it will be. You will end up skipping if you do not know the exact provisions and only very few acts are there. Okay. And it is no guarantee that UPS will only ask about the last one year acts. You can even ask last three years acts, four years acts. We cannot keep on predicting and preparing for every part of that. I think the risk reward ratios with the effort reward ratio is very minimal. Okay. So I would leave it to you to decide whether you want to go through all these provisions or not. So electricity act tries to, the amendment bill which is introduced, it tries to make changes to a 20-year-old act, electricity act of 2000. Okay. So the current electricity generation, distribution, regulation, all that is done based on a 20-year-old act. Okay. So that is why an amendment is now introduced. Maybe I am not sure whether it's 2000 or 2005 or 2002, but it's a quite a old act. Okay. Electricity act. So that is why amendment is being introduced now. Okay. It's a 2002 act. All right. Thank you. So it tries to rectify a biggest, one big problem of electricity sector, a big problem of electricity sector is in regulation of the sector. Okay. See, wherever you have private participants generating, transmitting and distributing electricity, you need to have an independent regulatory authority. Okay. If you have state alone generating, state alone transmitting, state alone distributing, you don't need a regulatory body. This is the case in Tamil Nadu. The state itself does all the activities. Maybe in generation, we may be outsourcing and buying it from private producers, but a transmission distribution done by the state in Tamil Nadu. So we don't have electricity regulatory commission, but you go to other states, you have regulatory commissions. But these regulatory commissions are crippled, crippled for want of independence, for want of financial powers. Okay. And political interference in appointments of members and chairman to these regulatory bodies. That is why an attempt is made in the form of introducing these amendments to ensure, to streamline the process of appointment of members to these regulatory bodies. So one way of how it is supposed to be streamlined is by giving more powers in the hand of center to appoint the members and the chairman of state electricity regulatory commission. So that is why certain states have been crying that it violates the federal principle. Electricity is in concurrent list. So both of us have powers. Why are you interfering with our power to make appointments to electricity regulatory commissions? So this is becoming an issue. But the purpose of the act is definitely it increases the role of center and appointment of members. Okay. The bill abolishes appellate tribunal for electricity is wrong. The bill creates an appellate tribunal for electricity. So if there are disputes, we can take it to regulatory body still dispute, we can take it to the appellate tribunal. Second statement is wrong. So if a statement is wrong, second statement is correct. So two only is the correct answer. So surprising, a few of you have even got it right also. Okay. That's good. So this is and there could be many other features of electricity at amendment bill 2023. Maybe you can have a look at it. And lastly, this is a forest conservation act. Amendment bill has been introduced in the parliament. But the question is not asked from the amendment bill. It is asked from the parent bill itself. But if you know the provisions of amendment bill, you will be able to get this question. From the parent act. Okay. So the question is not actually from the amendment bill, but the provisions of the parent act, which is supposed to be amended in the amendment bill. So I have directly gone to the provisions, which are attempted to be amended. Okay. 28th question. Okay, I'll show you once this is displayed. Once this is done, I'll show you the 28th question. So forest conservation act was passed to regulate the diversion of forest lands for non forest purpose. Okay, because there will be necessity for using forest land, excess land is there in forest land, except for the core areas, protected areas. There are certain parts of the forest, which are necessary to be used for certain other activities, which are non forest in nature. So when you divert the land for other purposes, let's say highway construction. Okay. What should you do to compensate for it? You have the act called as forest conservation act, which provides the ways to deal with such diversion. Okay. It regulates such diversion basically. And for what all activities can it be diverted? It is those provisions are there in forest conservation act. Can you think of what all activities would amount to diversion of forest lands for non forest purposes? What all would come probably under non forest purposes? Okay. Mining, dams. Okay. Those activities are prohibited. You cannot carry out those activities in forest lands. Okay. In certain protected forest lands, you cannot carry out those activities, but there could be a necessity to lay railway lines. There could be a necessity to lay a check posts. Okay. A forest beat posts have to be put in or a camp has to be constructed for paramilitary forces who are stationed in left wing extremist affected areas. There you have to clear forest, make a 100 acre camp. Okay. Environmentally, completely degrading activities. No, they are not allowed at all, but some activities like these kind of activities in the larger interest of security, in the interest of mobility, connectivity. So such kind of projects can be taken up under forest conservation act. That is after getting the consent of the center. Okay. Now the purpose of forest conservation act amendment bill which is introduced now is to expand the scope of those activities. If you read the recent amendment bill which is introduced, it tries to bring in some more activities which can be taken up. For example, establishing zoos, establishing safari parks, wildlife parks in forest areas. For those purposes also, forest land can be diverted for non-forest purposes. Okay. To build ecotourism initiatives, yes, the land can be diverted. Okay. So basically, creating zoos is a part of the latest amendment bill, not a part of the parent act. So that is why the question has been asked. This is not a part of the forest conservation act. It is a part of the latest amendment. Since it is not there, that is why the amendment itself is being proposed. Okay. So one should not be there. Leasing out forest land for private entities for non-forest purposes is allowed after getting the consent of the center. Okay. After getting the consent of the center for certain activities, forest lands can be diverted for non-forest purposes. Okay. So second statement is right. First statement is wrong. So two only is the correct answer. All right. So these are the important bills, latest laws that I can come across. Somebody asked me for 28th question. Okay. Just as Nagarathna in the child case, recognize child privacy. I don't know about that. Okay. I don't know. Right to privacy is explicitly mentioned in the UN Convention on Child Rights. Okay. There could be clause in the convention which says that the privacy of the child should be protected in certain cases and all that. Okay. But where there's explicit mention that right to privacy is a part of these rights. Okay. I didn't use the word privacy should be ensured in which all cases. I said right to privacy is different from ensuring privacy in certain occasions. Both are two different things. Okay. Question number 27. So may I know your performance? But looking at your amazing answers, I feel many of you would have got at least 20 questions right. Because I see some people giving me all right answers. Okay. So very encouraging in the sense you're going in the right direction. If you can get all these kinds of questions, right? You're able to think logically. You're able to deconstruct the problem. Somehow find your way in the answers. All these are skills that will matter in your real problems. Okay. Okay. Eight out of 30, 14 out of 29, 21 correct, seven wrong, 11 out of 30, 15 right, eight wrong, seven left. That is good. 16 out of 30. Okay. Less than 50% missing out technicalities, 12 out of 30. It's okay. You see for those who are getting less than 50% know, keep working. You still have two more months. Face these kinds of questions, improve precision. Make sure you develop discipline of leaving questions unattempted. Don't be tempted to attempt questions unnecessarily. Right. So keep doing all that. It's a slow process. Okay. With the time naturally, the improvement will be seen. Okay. It's okay to perfectly not, I mean, it's okay to not get even 10 questions right also. As I told you, these form the difficult questions in quality. And only four questions out of 10 questions if it is asked will be of this nature. Six questions will be simple. Make sure you don't leave out on those six questions at all. Even that old, even that way, you can ensure seven questions out of 10 questions are right in quality. Okay. That itself is enough if you can manage a decent attempt in other areas. Okay. But this is basically to give you an exposure to all the difficult kind of questions. Okay. To make you think, train yourself how to even get these kinds of questions, get the confidence to face all these kinds of questions. But many of you have outperformed, I would say, the continuous correct answers. Okay. All right. I think we're done with the session. So make use of other sessions also. Okay. Every Friday, Monday, we'll be having other sessions. All right. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Get the vibe back and make sure you clear problems. Okay. By now it's been one year since you attended the classes for old students. Good that you attempted the session. You do not take it complacent and you do not feel that, you know, the other quality here. Okay. So it is good that you are here and face similar questions, similar sessions, sharpen your skills, ace your problems. All right. I'll, okay. I'll share the PPT with all of you to all your registered mail ID. If possible, I'll also ask the Academy to attach a link of this PPT in the YouTube channel. All right. Okay. Thank you. All the best.