 A very good evening to all of our friends and welcome to the Hindu News Analysis of Shankar IAS Academy for the date 22nd January 2021. The list of the relevant news articles taken for today's discussion from 5 different editions of the Hindu newspaper along with their page numbers are given here for your reference. Also the handwritten notes in the PDF format and timestampings for all the news articles taken for today's discussion is given in the description box and also in the comment section for the best interest of the viewers. Now let us start with our first news article. Now this news article mentions that the Prince of Arkot, Navab Mohammad Abdul Ali has congratulated the US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. So in this discussion let us see about the Navabov Arkot, then Karnatic region and also about Karnatic wars from exam perspective. The syllabus relevant for this analysis is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. First let us know about Karnatic region or province. See according to some sources, Karnatic is a name given by Europeans to a region in southern India and it extends between the eastern Ghats and the Coromandel coast in the Presidency of Madras. It extended from Palakkad in the south to Bidar in the north and stretches from Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh in the north to Cape Komarind that is Kanyakumari at the southernmost tip of the Tamil Nadu state. See the current Chennai or the erstwhile Madras were situated in the Karnatic province and Karnatic province extended from the Krishna river to the Kohli Dam river. It was bounded on west by Kadapa, Salem and Dindigal, all of which formed the part of the erstwhile state of Mysore. Now the Mughal king Aurangasip captured the Karnatic from Marathas and appointed Zulfikar Ali Khan as Navabov Karnatic in 1690. See Zulfikar Khan was one of the commanders of the Mughal dynasty. He administered the Mughal rule from Arkot. So during his reign, Arkot became the capital of the Karnatic region and most of the administrative buildings were constructed there. And in 1703, Daud Khan was appointed as the Navabov Karnatic and after him, his divine Mohammed Said was appointed as the Navab. And Emperor Aurangasip gave him an honorific title of Sadatullah Khan. So he was generally known as the first Navabov Arkot. Now the last Navabov Arkot was the 12th Navabov Karnatic who was Gula Muhammad Gauss Khan. He was the Navab from 1842 to 1855. He was the Navab from 1842 to 1855. But during his rule, the Karnatic region was brought under the British rule by Lord Dalhousie through the act of doctrine of lapse. See Dalhousie was the governor general of British India at that time and he advised a policy called doctrine of lapse for the final wave of annexation to the British rule. And this doctrine declared that if an Indian ruler died without a male hair, then his kingdom would be lapsed. That is his kingdom will become a part of company territory. So by simply applying this doctrine, one kingdom after another was annexed by the British. Similarly, the Karnatic region was brought under British control using this same doctrine because Gauss Khan did not have any male issue or male hair. But he had a sole legal hair who was his paternal uncle, Asim Jha. But Asim Jha was denied the succession due to this doctrine. So after the death of Gauss Khan in 1855, Asim Jha pressed his claims to the succession in England. And after several negotiations with the Queen Victoria of England, Asim Jha was made a political pensioner and a new title was created in 1867 with several honours and privileges attached to the title, which was named as title in perpetuity, that is to last forever. The new title was His Highness the Prince of Arcote or Amir A. Arcote in India. So after this, he was known as the Prince of Arcote and along with him, his close family members were also given perpetual political stipends known as the Karnatic stipends. You know that until this day, even after independence, these Karnatic stipends are given. And the present Prince of Arcote is the Eighth Prince of Arcote who is Nawab Muhammad Abdul Ali. Now while talking about Karnatic region, we cannot forget about the Karnatic Wars as Karnatic Wars are regarded as great importance in shaping the Imperial policy of English, which ultimately enabled them to establish the Dominion in India. See the basis of these wars were the rivalry between England and France, which developed into a war in Europe itself in 1742. And these wars soon spread to India with the two East India companies, that is the English East India Company and the French East India Company clashed with each other. As a result of this, for nearly 20 years from 1744 to 1763, the French and English were waging war for the control over the trade, wealth and territory of India. And eventually these wars resulted in establishment of the political supremacy of British East India Company in India. In this, the first Karnatic War happened between 1746 to 1748. And during this, the English settlements of Madras and Kadalur were captured by the French. The important battle in this, the Battle of Adair started in October 1746. And this particular battle was between the French East India Company and the forces of the Nawab of Arcote, Anwaruddin. The battle was to recapture Fort St. George in the then Madras. And the Nawab of Arcote was a close ally of the British East India Company. But French defeated the British Army and retained the control over the fort. The war was ended by the Treaty of Axilla Chapel, according to which Madras was returned back to English. And in turn, French got the North American territories back. Then came the Second Karnatic War, which started in 1749 and lasted till 1754. The main cause of this war was the issue of succession in Karnatic and Hyderabad. In this was the English and French who took the opposition sides to help the claimants of the thrones. Anwaruddin Khan and Chanda Sahib were the two people who claimed the throne of Karnatic, whereas Nasir Junk and Musafir Junk claimed the throne of Hyderabad. The French supported Chanda Sahib and Musafir Junk, while the British supported Anwaruddin Khan and Nasir Junk. And this resulted in two battles, one is the Battle of Ambur in 1749 and the next one is the Battle of Arcote in 1751. And in these two battles, Joseph Franchot Duplex, who was the governor of the French East India Company, then Chanda Sahib and Musafir Junk formed a grand alliance. As a result of this, they defeated and killed Anwaruddin Khan and Nasir Junk. And in the Battle of Arcote, Robert Clive defeated the French and captured Arcote. Chanda Sahib, who had been made the Nawab of Arcote, after the battle, was also killed. And this war ended with a treaty called the Treaty of Pondicherry in 1755, which made the British stronger. But still the Second Karnatic War also proved inconclusive about who will win the control over South India. And for this, the conclusion was arrived in the Third Karnatic War. See, the Third Karnatic War was a part of the Seven Years' War in Europe. The important battle was the Battle of Vandivas in 1760. And in this battle, the English army defeated the French within a year and the French lost all their positions in India. And later in 1763, the Seven Years' War was concluded by the Treaty of Paris. And under this treaty, the French settlements, including Pondicherry, were given back to the French. But here, know that the French was forbidden from fortifying those places. Also they were not allowed to gather any armies. So this shows how powerful the British became after the Karnatic Wars. Thus the French dominance in India practically came to an end and resulted in the dominance of British. So in this discussion, we saw about Karnatic region, then we saw about the Nawab of Arcote and also about the Three Karnatic Wars. With this information, let us move on to the next news. Now this editorial is with reference to political prosecution and it talks about the need for the judiciary to recognize selective prosecution as constitutional defense against the abuse of state power. We will discuss this article in detail. The relevant syllabus is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. See, prosecution is the act of charging someone with a crime and putting them on trial. And political prosecution means a trial that addresses political questions. This term is generally used to criticize a particular trial or proceeding as unfair or unjust due to the chances of political officials or political agenda getting involved in it. And the author begins by mentioning about the abuse of state power in India through which the police and enforcement agencies selectively target political and ideological opponents of the ruling dispensation on unrelated grounds and at the same time sparing the supporters and friends of the rulers of the day. And here comes the illegality of such prosecution and know that the illegality involved is not self-evident. That means it cannot be seen in the first instance itself. And due to this, it appears to be very much legal or complying with the strict standards at the first glance. However, the reality lies in the answer of two questions. That is the question of legality in the exercise of prosecutional discretion in the selection of the accused. And the second is the question of legality in merits of the criminal cases filed against them. Know that Article 14 of Indian Constitution gives right to equal protection of law. So legally, the choice of accused shouldn't be based on the grounds that violate our constitutional rights. And this includes Article 14. And also the accused shouldn't be selected either explicitly or implicitly on the grounds which are prohibited by the Constitution. Now, this is what we call selective prosecution, which is the process of accusing a person based on the grounds which are prohibited by the Constitution. Now, the author notes the saying of a chief justice of the US Supreme Court. According to the chief justice, a selective prosecution claim is not criticizing the merit to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charges for reasons which are forbidden by the Constitution. Thus, in Indian context, it is a constitutional claim asserted on the basis that they were selected for being prosecuted in violation of Article 14 because the grounds of selection are constitutionally prohibited and are also arbitrary. See, when the choice of the accused is not in accordance with the Constitution, then the entire proceeding is spoiled irrespective of whether the accused are convicted or acquitted on the charges brought against them. And as per the theory, the Constitution cannot be violated to uphold a law. So thus, the constitutionally prohibited ground which we are confronting in India is the political or ideological affiliation of the accused that violates the Article 14, which guarantees equal protection of law. This means to say that the ruling dispensation, according to its whims and fancies, use the provisions of the law to prosecute their political opponents. Now, coming to Indian courts, they have not recognized selective prosecution as an independent claim due to the wrong assumption that the lawfulness of a prosecution can only be taken up after the trial and only if the accused is acquitted. For example, the 2018 report of the Law Commission on wrongful prosecution, Miscarriage of Justice legal remedies says that the remedies for wrongful prosecution is available only if and after the accused is acquitted. But here it is to be noted that the remedy after acquitted comes too late and after a long criminal justice process. Also, the right against selective prosecution cannot be extinguished by conviction which proves the need for a formal judgment with regard to selective prosecution, either at the beginning of the criminal proceedings or during the investigation stage irrespective of the merit of the charges. The author then focuses on the role played by the Arnab Goswami case in strengthening the recognition and the use of selective prosecution claims in India. And he uses this to counter the politically favored prosecution which is released by the state and to defend our liberty. See, in addition to Arnab Goswami's claim that he is targeted for various opinions that he holds and expresses, the judgment also asserted that the courts should cater for the needs to ensure that the law doesn't become a means for targeted harassment. It further said that the court doors shouldn't be close to a person who is able to establish prima facie that the state is weaponized for using the force of criminal law. The judgment also quoted the Supreme Court holding in Romila Thapar versus the Union of India case that the investigative process should be fair. Since it is an important component in the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Therefore, in order to strengthen the protection of civil liberty, equality and democracy, the courts at all levels should effectively recognize selective prosecution as a constitutional defense against the abuse of police and prosecution powers. So, this is all about the editorial. With this information, let us move on to the next news. Now, let us take up this editorial which talks about judiciary overreach. We know that recently the Supreme Court state the implementation of the three farm laws which were passed in September 2020 and ordered the constitution of a committee of experts to negotiate between the farmers' bodies and the government of India. So, the persons in conversation in this editorial are discussing their opinion regarding this move of the Supreme Court. Let us discuss them in detail. The syllabus relevant for this analysis is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. See the author's opinion that the problem with this judicial interference in the functioning of the government is that rather than deliberating on the constitutionality of the three laws, the court is trying to arrive at a political settlement between the parties. And the authors see this as a judicial outreach and they open that many constitutional experts feel that the Supreme Court has distracted itself from its constitutional duty and it is trying to enter into the domain of the government. Here the experts are also worried about this growing trend of judicial overreach. Now, what is the opinion of the experts regarding this judicial overreach? Firstly, the Supreme Court had stayed the implementation of the farm laws and has formed an expert committee. What is problematic here is nobody has asked Supreme Court to do this. The court only had three petitions before it. One is challenging the constitutionality of the laws and the others were with regard to the recent protests. The court viewed the farmers' protests as completely legal and as part of the exercise of citizens' rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. And it also said that the police alone can take a call on the security aspects of the protests. So with regard to the two petitions on the protests, according to the experts, the court has taken a fair stand. However, what is unfair is the court noted that the government has not been particularly successful in negotiating with the farmers group. So in this regard, the Supreme Court formed its own committee and for this, the court gave the president of the Maratha Reservation case in which it had issued a stay. But in that instance, the stay was given on constitutional grounds and the experts opined that in this case, the court had not taken up any such constitutional issues at all in spite of the fact that there are numerous constitutional issues at stake. For example, there are issues of federalism, of agriculture being a state subject, as well as the manner in which the voice vote was passed in the Rajya Sabha, which was controversial. In spite of all this, without taking all these issues into consideration, the Supreme Court has just state the implementation of the farm laws. So according to the experts, what is worrying is that in the January 12th order, the court did not even set out clearly what the legal grounds of challenges are. However, the experts point out to the legal grounds for the challenge of law, which were mentioned in the petitions filed by the Bharatiya Kisan Party. It argues that under the constitutional scheme, agriculture and farm produce are matters reserved under the entries 14, 18, 30, 46, 47 and 48 of the list two of the seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution. And on these issues, only the state legislatures are competent to frame laws. Their argument is that the center simply could not pass the farm bills, as it did not have the legislative competence. See, according to our constitution, courts may stay orders on parliamentary laws. But for this, they need to set out legal reasons. And when you look at the reasonings given by the court, in paragraph eight, the court says that, we are also of the view that a stay of implementation of all the three farm laws for the present may assuage or reduce the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and faith. And according to the experts, this is a strange reason and not a sound legal reason. To issue a stay, courts usually state the legal and constitutional arguments. That is, a stay is issued only when the court feels that the particular law in question is in violation of the Constitution. But when the court cites assuaging or reducing hurt feelings of the protesting farmers, it leads to a question whether the court is interested in constitutional matters or administrative issues. One more issue that the experts bring up is, over the last few years, numerous cases of constitutional importance have been brought before the court. But instead of focusing on those issues, the court is showing interest in controversial areas like the farm laws and the Ayodhya temple building case, et cetera. And it should be noted that the Supreme Court showed no such intention with regard to cases like the Article 370, the Citizenship Amendment Act, then the reservation quota for economically weaker sections, then electoral bonds. And more recently, the so-called Lao Jihad Laws. We should know that while adopting our constitution in 1950, the famous of our constitution made departures from the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, and they gave courts the important power to strike down the laws made by the parliament. That is, it has given the power of judicial review. However, with time, courts have used this power to check the power of the executive while also extending their own authority. To understand this phenomenon, let us take an example. Take the power of imposition of precedence rule under Article 356. It was initially understood that courts cannot go into the question of whether precedence rule has been properly imposed, as this was based on the subjective satisfaction of the president. However, the Supreme Court in the historical case, SR Bhame versus the Union of India, has held that even this decision can be reviewed. So, all these have led to the Indian Supreme Court being the most powerful court in the world. But in all the recent cases that have been discussed now, where the legal and constitutional questions were raised, the court has not taken any stand and has kept them waiting. Here, the experts opinion that the court is choosing to intervene in cases which are not that much relevant for it. And this leads to questions being raised about the legitimacy of its intervention. Know that in early independent India, the Supreme Court took a stand on various issues such as the land reforms, reservations, the use of Article 356, bank nationalization, privy purses, et cetera, and gave judgments on these issues expeditiously. The judgments were good or bad is left to the individuals to decide. But the point is that the court didn't shy away from giving its opinion or it did not delay the judgments. But what we are seeing recently is the court is reluctant to take up issues that possess constitutional challenges. Now the experts point out on one good thing that the SC has done in the recent past that is the ruling in favor of the LGBTQ community. It struck down the section 377 of IPC and decriminalized same-sex relations. Even though this was seen as a judicial overreach, the reason given by the Supreme Court was valid. That is, it is necessary to uphold the interests of a group which cannot prevail in a majoritarian system of elections. However, few experts are of the opinion that even this judgment by the Supreme Court was an exception than a rule. They are of the view that the court acts in a counter-majoritarian way only in rare instances like the Navtej Johar case. See, what is worrying is that the case that preceded the Navtej Johar case that is the Kaushal v. Nas Foundation case, the court went on to the extent of calling the LGBTQ people a minuscule minority. So, we can conclude seeing that we should view the function of the judiciary not just in terms of outcomes and who it benefits, but also in terms of its process. And the process includes who it hears and how it hears and also how it decides in terms of its reasoning. So, these are the opinions of the experts. With this information, let us move on to the next news. Now, this opiate article is with reference to death penalty and the issues associated with it. First, know that death penalty is also called as capital punishment. It means execution of an offender who has been sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law for a criminal offense. Here note that according to Amnesty International, India is among the 56 nations in the world that have retained death penalty. Now, this topic is in the limelight due to the death row convict Balwant Singh Rajona. See, he was convicted for assassinating the former Chief Minister of Punjab in 1995 and later sentenced to death by a CBA special court in 2007. In 2014, his mercy petition was filed but a decision on his mercy petition has not been taken till now, even after being incarcerated for over 25 years. So, the Supreme Court intervened and had fixed the hearing for it in this month. As you are aware, the clemency power or the mercy powers in India are enshrined in the constitution of India. See, the clemency powers means either pardoning an offender or reducing or altering the awarded punishment. Article 72 of the constitution vests these powers in the precedent and article 161 vests similar powers in the governance of the states. So, what are the issues with respect to death penalty? As we can see above, first issue is the delay in carrying out death penalty. So, because of this particular reason, a need for reviewing India's position on capital punishment has arrived. The second issue is due to the first issue, that is, delay in execution leads to prolonged detention of convicts and that too for long years of solitary confinement. This is not only inhumane, but also an injustice as it causes psychological trauma for the convicts. The third issue is the delay in various decisions regarding death penalty. The first delay could be seen in whether to keep a death penalty or to abolish it. See, in 2015, the Law Commission of India released its 260-second report, which was on death penalty. In that, the commission recommended abolishing the death penalty for all the crimes other than terrorism-related offenses and waging war. Consequently, comments were sought from states and union territories for its abolition. But as of 2018, only 14 states have responded, but many states are yet to respond. Now secondly, the delay could be seen on deciding of mercy petitions. Here, you should understand the mercy petition process, for which the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in 2014, in the Shatrugan Chauhan v. Union of India case. See, these guidelines are for safeguarding the interests of the death row convicts. And according to it, once the death row convict files a mercy petition to the president under Article 72 of the Constitution, this guideline asks to fix a time limit for the state government to forward all the documents pertaining to a particular case to the Home Ministry. And after getting all the details, it is for the Ministry of Home Affairs to send the recommendations or the views to the president. And this should be within a reasonable and rational time. And even after sending the necessary particulars, if there is no response from the office of the president, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs to send periodical reminders and to provide the required materials for early decision by the president. But often, this has not been followed by the ministry, which leads to delay on the decision of mercy petition. Here note that our formal president Pranamungarji was an exception, as he disposed of 34 mercy petitions in his term. Here the fact is not whether the mercy petitions were rejected by him or the clemency is offered, but he at least took some decision on those petitions. So based on this, as a conclusion, the author has suggested to fix a time frame for the president to dispose of the mercy petitions. So this is all about this opiate article. With this, let us move on to the next news. Now have a look at this question. It is based on this news article which talks about the death of Tamil fisherman in the Park Street after the fishing boat reportedly collided with a Sri Lankan Navy patrol boat. In this context, let us have a brief discussion on Park Street and its related geographical features. See the Park Street is an inlet of the Bay of Bengal which lies between South East India and the Northern Sri Lanka. It connects the Arabian Sea and the Park Bay in the Bay of Bengal and to its south lies the Pampin Island, the Adams Bridge and the Gulf of Manar. Note that the Port of Jaffna which is a commercial centre for Northern Sri Lanka also lies on the street. Since the water in the street is shallow and since it contains coral reefs, large ships could not navigate in them and it had to travel around Sri Lanka. Also the unrest in Northern Sri Lanka have disrupted the shipping across the street between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu in India. Note that at the southern end of Park Bay lies a chain of low islands and coral shores and they are collectively called as Adams Bridge also popularly known as Ramsetu meaning the bridge of Rama. It got this name from the Hindu mythology Ramayana. See the Ramasetu extends from Pampin or Ramisharam Island in Tamil Nadu to the Manar Island in Sri Lanka and it plays a major role in controlling the amount of water which is getting exchanged between the Gulf of Manar and Park Street. Now coming to Gulf of Manar it lies between the southern tip of India and the northwestern cost of Sri Lanka. It consists of high hills in the centre which is surrounded by less high hills and below lies a large area of flatland and due to its rich diversity the Indian government declared this area as a protected area and within this area lies the Manar Marine National Park. See the Manar Marine National Park which is located within the larger Gulf of Manar Biosphere Reserve consists of 21 small islands which are enclosed by coral reefs and the shallow underwater habitat of marine biodiversity. And note that it has got three marine ecosystems namely sea grass, coral reefs and mangroves. Also the national park consists of about 11 species of sea grass and 117 species of hard coral. And it is to be noted that the Gulf of Manar Biosphere Reserve is the feeding ground for the largest endangered marine mammal which is called dugong and also for sea turtles. It is also the last refuge of the unique living fossil Balanoglosses that links vertebrates and invertebrates. It is also important for crustaceans, mollusks, echinoderms, fishes and many other marine species like whales, dolphins and sea cucumber. Moreover, it occupies a prominent place in the cultural heritage and history of India as the famous pilgrim center Ramishuram is situated in this Gulf. So this is all about Park Strait. In this discussion we saw about Park Strait and its related geographical features like the Palm Bend Island, Adams Bridge, the Gulf of Manar, the Marine National Park and the Manar Biosphere Reserve. Now have a look at this question. Consider the following statements with reference to Gulf of Manar. The first statement reads it is the feeding grounds for the largest endangered marine mammal, dugong. Yes, this statement is correct. And the second statement reads the Gulf of Manar region is enriched with productive habitats such as coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves. Yes, this statement is also correct. So in this question we are supposed to identify the incorrect statement or statements. Since both the statements are correct, the correct answer for this question is option D, neither one nor two. So with this we have analyzed almost all the relevant news articles from today's The Hindu Newspaper. Now let us move on to the practice questions discussion section based on today's news analysis. Here is our first question. Consider the following statements regarding selective prosecution. The first statement reads it is the process of accusing a person based on the grounds prohibited by the Constitution. Yes, this statement is correct. The second statement reads remedies for wrongful prosecution is available anytime. See, this statement is incorrect. During our discussion we have seen the report of the law commission titled wrongful prosecution miscarriage of justice legal remedies 2018. It says that the remedies for wrongful prosecution is available only if and after the accused is acquitted. This means the remedy after acquittal comes too late and after a long criminal justice process. So here we are supposed to identify the incorrect statement or statements. Since statement one is correct and statement two is incorrect, the correct answer for this question is option B, two only. Now see the second question. Consider the following statements. The president of India and governors of the states have same pardoning powers. See, this statement is incorrect. The president of India and the governors of the state do not have same pardoning powers. Now the second statement reads governor of a state can pardon sentences inflicted by a court martial but cannot pardon death sentence. Now see, the first statement and the second statement are contradicting. See, as per article 72 of the Indian Constitution, the president has both the powers mentioned in statement two. That is, he can pardon a punishment or a sentence by a court martial and he can also pardon death sentence. But the governor does not have both these powers. So the governor cannot pardon the sentences which are inflicted by a court martial. So both the statements given are incorrect. Here we are supposed to identify the incorrect statement or statements. Since both the statements are incorrect, the correct answer for this question is option C, both one and two. Now see this question with reference to Karnatic Wars, consider the following events. Four events are given here. Battle of Vandivas, Battle of Adyar, Treaty of Axila Chapel, Second Karnatic War. Which of the following is the correct chronological sequence of the Ebo events? See, the Battle of Vandivas happened in 1760 in the Third Karnatic War and Battle of Adyar started in October 1746 in the First Karnatic War. And know that the Treaty of Axila Chapel ended the British and French War in Europe. And it also ended the First Karnatic War in India. So the correct sequence is option B, two, three, four, one. That is Battle of Adyar, Treaty of Axila Chapel, Second Karnatic War and then Battle of Vandivas. Now have a look at this question. It is framed based on this news article which talks about the Kerala State Legislative Assembly rejecting a motion which was moved by the opposition seeking the removal of speaker. And this question is with reference to Lok Sabha's speaker. Consider the following statements with regard to the post of the speaker of Lok Sabha. The speaker of Lok Sabha at no instance has the power to vote. See, this statement is incorrect because the speaker can vote when there is a tie. That is, he has given the power to give a casting vote. Now the second statement reads the speaker of Lok Sabha is given seventh rank in the order of precedence along with the Chief Justice of India. Yes, this statement is correct. So we have to identify the correct statement or statements. Here statement one is incorrect and statement two is correct. So the correct answer for this question is option B, two only. And now we have this means question. Please write your answers and post it in the comment section. Our feedback will be given in a reasonable time frame. So friends, with this, we have come to the end of analysis of all the news articles taken for today's discussion and also the discussion of practice questions. If you like this video, please press the like button, comment, share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more updates related to civil service preparation. Thank you.