 Good afternoon everyone. Today's session is basically to give you an idea about how to approach your upcoming problems examination with respect to the quality part of exam. So in order to understand the way in which you have to proceed further, first we will have to make an analysis of the previous year's UPSA questions. Say for example, you take the question papers from 2013 and you make an analysis till 2019 because it was in 13 for the first time in the recent years the pattern had changed. We come across a certain kind of a trend. Say for example, in 13 to 15, 16 probably the kind of questions that used to be asked in polity related parts were much more direct. They used to test about the conventional parts like the structure of government, form of government and what are the unique features of local self-gone bodies and how do you understand about federalism? So those are the areas that used to be asked in the previous years. But in the last three years from 17 onwards if you actually analyze the previous year's question paper, we come to an understanding that more of emphasis has been given to the philosophical basis of constitution. Say for example, in 17, 18 and 19, every year there are at least two questions about the various just about the definitions in preamble. What is equality? What is your understanding of liberty? So how do you actually understand justice? So these are the areas which UPSC seems to be much more fascinated about in asking questions. So how do you actually prepare for these topics? Because these are the areas which you would not be actually preparing well when you just read from Lakshmikanth alone. So your standard textbook Lakshmikanth is very good when it comes to revising and understanding about all possible areas where questions can be asked in every other area of the polity other than the first five to be most precise. I would say that when it comes to understanding about the concepts behind the making of constitution, you don't find enough of material in Lakshmikanth. So there are only two other books which you'll have to refer for this. It's just your gold standard books, your NCRTs, your 11th standard and 12th standard NCRTs, just two books. One is about the political theory. The other one is Indian Constitution at work. Just with these two books, you can actually master your entire concepts behind the understanding of what is actually contained in the topic of polity. So say for an understanding, let's take Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 prevents any kind of inequality. But when you start looking at the way the other articles in Part 3, the Fundamental Rights Chapter, what about the other articles in Part 3? So Article 15, 16, 17, so those are all other articles have been created with a specific purpose in mind. The purpose is basically to take care of the specific disadvantages of schedule cost and schedule tribe communities. It's because the constitution makers had understood about the innumerable sufferings which these sections of the society have undergone over centuries. So that's why certain safeguards have been provided for these vulnerable sections in various parts of the constitutions, especially when you read from Article 330 to 338. So there are n number of provisions which has been created to give these sections a push when compared to the other sections of the population. So same is the concept behind justice. What do you mean by social justice? The social justice is what actually allows affirmative action in the Indian society. And how does the Constitution take care of that? It takes care of social justice and affirmative action in Article 16 of the Constitution. So is Article 16 against Article 14 or not? So that is another area which needs further exploration. And this is precisely the area which gets tested in the UPS examinations when questions are asked about what do you understand by equality. So next comes, say for example, 2019 question paper. So there are questions about an individual's choice to marry a person. So though it might appear to be under Article 19, so the question appears to be simple but it's not so simple because a conflict always arises in the minds of an aspirant whether is the correct answer Article 19 or Article 21. Both of them talk about liberty but Article 19 is more specific. It only talks about certain kinds of freedom, whereas liberty is much more broader concept. So that's why Article 21 has to be differentiated from Article 19. And the right answer for this question would be Article 21 rather than Article 19. So how do you actually prepare for this? It's only when you understand clearly the concept of what freedom means and when you understand the concept behind what liberty is all about because freedom is just a subset of liberty. Liberty is much more broader and this is what has been tested in the last two years. So what I would like to point out in the session is first, have a very thorough understanding of the philosophy behind the constitution, why the constitution has evolved and it's only by doing that probably you'll be preparing for two or three questions in the upcoming year aspect. So this is one point that I would like to share with you regarding what area of the constitution you need to have a more philosophical and theoretical understanding about. So first is with respect to your chapter on fundamental rights, what are rights basically and what is the role of state in protecting a right? It's not that state always comes against the interest of a citizen. It's not that the state is always, it's not always that the state is restrictive to the rights of a citizen but it might be even the other way around. Say for example, if an individual is just left to roam around on the streets if you can drive your vehicles and two-wheelers without any kinds of rules and regulations, finally what would result on the road is just anarchy and where nobody will be able to actually drive their vehicle. So from that example what we can actually understand is if an individual's liberty is not restricted within certain limits, each and every individual starts exercising their independence, their liberty in such a way that finally at the end of the day nobody would be able to enjoy their liberty at all. So that's why the state needs to impose certain kinds of regulations, certain kinds of driving rules, so that it paves the way for the broader section of the society being able to enjoy each other's liberty. So you cannot always say that the state itself is against an individual. The state in fact it can even promote the individual liberty and freedom of a specific person. So try to go through your political theory book, which is your NCRT book, so with that you will be able to develop a very good understanding of all the political theories which is deep lying under these concepts. There are five or six concepts which you will have to make yourself throw with equality, justice, freedom, liberty, so social justice. So these kind of areas if you had to focus, so that would be very good for you in the examination. So last year if we have to make an analysis of the previous question paper, total of 12 questions have been asked in polity, and out of 12 questions 11 questions are actually manageable. 11 questions can be answered if you have a good understanding of these two NCRTs along with the Kashmikanth textbook. There is only one question for which you might not be knowing the answer, all the other questions, there's something which you can actually manage from just three textbooks alone, just that you need to revise and re-revise them again and again. Just by continuously revising the books you'll be making yourself familiar with all the hidden areas in the textbooks. So one way to go about that is solve as many questions as possible or make your daily target five or 10 questions related to polity per day. Solve them, make a lot of mistakes, go back to your NCRTs, develop a further understanding of what is the theory behind all these aspects. So that would be the best way to sharpen yourself and prepare yourself in the upcoming days in the next two months or something. So out of 12 questions, two questions were just from liberty and freedom. There's nothing more very complicated about it. And out of these 12 questions, you have to get at least 10 questions right and it's actually manageable to get 10 questions right if you have read these books multiple times. So let's look at the other questions also. So apart from these two questions, there are three other questions which has been asked specifically from the area of judiciary. So when it comes to judiciary, why has UPSE focused on three questions in judiciary? One of the question that was about the jurisdiction of high courts, the question that was actually asked was, can high courts declare the competency of central law to be invalid? So the reason why it was asked is to test whether a student actually understands that in India we have something called as an integrated judiciary. And because unlike the legislature and executive, which is divided between the central government and the state government, in judiciary, we come across a unified structure. It's very integrated. So it's the same high courts and supreme courts which have the jurisdiction and the powers to check the validity of central law as well as state law. So is the student clear about it? Probably that could have been the reason why UPSE would have asked that question. First, the next question is about the jurisdictions of supreme court. We normally come across various jurisdictions, original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, and rich jurisdiction. But last year the question that was asked was from Article 142 of the Constitution. 142 of the Constitution talks about a very specific kind of a power in the hands of judiciary. It talks about the extraordinary power of supreme courts who has to deliver complete justice. And Article 142, even if you would not have known about the exact provision of Article 142, if you are able to broadly understand from 125, 130 to 145, somewhere it's all about supreme court. It's about judiciary. If you can just relate that aspect in your mind, probably you'll be ending up eliminating all the other three options and you could have gone for the right option. So it's a very intelligent mix of your memory, your knowledge, your right knowledge which you have gathered over a period of time, along with the skill of elimination, which actually matters in clearing this examination. So this is another kind of question which has been asked, another part of question paper. And we'll come to the third aspect of the question paper. So this is a part of question, UP is the question paper, where a knowledge of history is also required to score marks. Say for example, there were two questions asked last year. One of the question was with respect to ninth schedule. The other question was with respect to 39th constitutional amendment. So if I have to be very precise about the questions, one of the question was about when was nine schedule introduced for the first time? And during which whose prime ministership was nine schedule introduced for the first time? So there were four choices which were given in that question. To get that answer right, either you should have memorized about ninth schedule, when was it introduced? Was it introduced in the first constitutional amendment? All that is fine, but it's not possible to go and memorize each and every amendment which is there in the constitution. It does not make sense. It's not highly rewarding as well. So what it could actually do with these kind of questions is you have to just make yourself very, very thorough with the evolution of basic structure. Basic structure is actually what led to what you can say as the principle, as the reinforcement of principle of separation of powers. Because though we had adopted a model which is similar to the British parliamentary setup, the way the institution's function is almost, it's designed on the US constitution, similar lines. So though in the earlier days, there were certain symptoms of parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary supremacy in India as well. But by 1970s, with the Keshwan and the Bharatis case verdict, it was clearly established that it's based on the principle of division of powers, the Indian institution's function. So it is that landmark judgment, Keshwan and the Bharatis case, which actually settled the equations between executive legislature and judiciary. So if that was the case, how did basic structure evolve? What led to the change in the thought process of judiciary itself? Say for example, the first case, Shankari Prasad's Union of India, that was very, very different. The court had a very different outcome from what had been delivered in Keshwan and the Bharatis judgment. So how did it actually happen? So an understanding basic structure is very, very essential, not just from the problems point of view, but also from the main aspect as well, because it is basic structure, which leads to separation of powers between the institutions, where each and every organ tries to check and balance another institution. So that is why I have a very, very clear understanding about the basic structure of the constitution. Start from the first amendment, because the very reason why Shankari Prasad's case had even gone to the level of Supreme Court was to challenge the validity of the first amendment. Why was it done? Think about 1950s. What was the main objective of Indian National Congress? It was the same objective, which Congress had promised to India in 1929 in Karachi session as well. So in Karachi session, the broader idea, the principle, I can say, the manifesto behind Indian National Congress was to promote land reforms in India. They were not able to be successful to a greater extent. And that is the reason why once again, after independence, that was taken up as their first agenda, post independence. And in 1952, the land reform acts were all enacted by the various state legislatures. So as soon as it was enacted, as soon as it was implemented, immediately the problem came. The problem that came up was that these land reform laws were found to be against the right to freedom of property. So no wonder a lot of these reforms, legislations, which are passed by respective state legislatures, all of them ended up being challenged in the High Courts and Supreme Court. So now comes the problem before the Indian National Congress, the Congress High Command of the Center. So if they have to go proceed further with the land reforms at their state level, and this issue has to be sorted out. And sorting out this issue means an amendment that has to be done to the Constitution. Either the best way to do it is, the freedom, the right to property has to be restricted, so as to allow land reforms to be successful. And who has the power to do it? It's a union legislature, the parliament, who has the competency to do it, to make amendments to the Constitution. No wonder the first constitutional amendment was broke. It's as a result of the first constitutional amendment, you find all those 31A, 31B, 31C, these kinds of safeguarding provisions which will be brought in the, introduced in the Constitution. So this is 31B and C. 31C is precisely what is called as the ninth schedule. And it is this which tends to be, which was asked in the previous year question. So this question has been asked, so as to understand whether the aspirant has actually understood the reason why the amendment has been brought in the first instance or not. So it would not be of much use if you have to just memorize what is first constitutional amendment, the year in which it was brought, what were the provisions that was brought and what was the outcome of Shankari Prasad's case. With that kind of a very limited, narrow understanding, you would not be able to get this answer correct. It's only when you know that ninth schedule was introduced, so as to remove the barrier for implementing land reform laws. And when was the land reform laws implemented? When were the land reform laws legislated? It was done in the immediate years post independence. So who would have been the prime minister during that point of time? It was Jawaharlal Nehru. So then that could have fetched you the answer right. So this is also a trend which we analyze, which we understand in the last two or three years. Because even in the previous year, there was a question which was asked about, which was the first party, something like that about Swatantara party. So whether they were in the opposition or not. So some kind of such kind of question was also asked. So we find in the last two or three years that questions in polity also have a connection with history, with the post independence consolidation part. So I think UPC is testing the aspirant with respect to whether they know the background reasons why such amendments have been brought or not. So it would be very helpful for the aspirant if you can actually familiarize with the events that have just happened before the amendments. What was the reason why such amendments have been brought? At least with respect to very prominent amendments that have led to the evolution of basic structure. First amendment, 24th and 25th amendment. 24th and 25th amendment was what gets challenged in Keshwan and the Bharatis case. So 24th amendment, it tries to immunize laws that implements DPSPs. So how can the government come up with the assumption that DPSPs are more important than fundamental rights? That's why even if a law for the purpose of implementing DPSP, if it's contravening fundamental rights, then you cannot question any law as null and void. This was a substance of 24th and 25th amendment. But this was once again challenged in Keshwan and the Bharatis case. It was struck down, a proper structure called, a framework called as a basic structure doctrine comes into existence. And after that, so slowly, the basic structure has not evolved in a single case. It's over a period of years, slowly, slowly with judicial interpretations with respect to certain specific context in which cases have been litigated in the Supreme Court. That is how the basic structure has actually evolved. So there are very prominent cases. Why were the cases fought? What was the challenge for the court? So all those issues, if you can keep in mind, say for example, another question that was asked in 2019 was with respect to 39th constitutional amendment. The exact question that was asked was, it was 44th amendment, which immunized the election of prime minister from judicial review. So this is a question which you might feel that it has been asked totally out of the blue, but that is not the case. If you can just master your evolution of basic structure, handling these kind of questions becomes very, very easy. Because it was in the midst of the emergency, national emergency declared in 1975, this particular amendment was actually brought. Why was it brought? Because of Allahabad verdict, Allahabad High Court verdict, which actually nullified the election of Indira Gandhi. So she went on a challenge to Supreme Court. And while the case was pending in Supreme Court, this particular constitutional amendment was brought in via 39th constitutional amendment act. So what was the substance of 39th constitutional amendment act? It tried to give absolute protection to four different officers, president, vice president, and the prime minister and speaker. So any disputes regarding these elections cannot be taken to the judiciary at all. So this was actually challenged in the same appeal case which was fought in the Supreme Court. And it was in this case, the judiciary decided that the parliament is trying to actually dilute the principle of separation of powers. To check whether the election is valid to parliament or not has to be done by a body other than parliament. Only then conflict of interest will not arise. So that's why the Supreme Court has decided that it is against the principle of separation of powers and this was completely struck down as null and void. So this was 39th amendment. Then came the 42nd amendment. 42nd amendment was, in fact, it completely reworked the very nature of the constitution itself. And even 42nd amendment itself was very, very interesting because 42nd amendment was brought in the middle of emergency. It was a lot of recommendations. So Swaran Singh's committee was also implemented here. That was when two new words were added to the preamble of the constitution and a chapter on fundamental duties. Plus the way the provision for tribunals were changed in the constitution. All that was a result of the outcome of Swaran Singh committee's recommendations which were given a practical shape in the constitution by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act. So why was it all done? You have to trace it back to the election manifesto of Indira Gandhi in 1971 during the elections. So Golaknath's judgment in 67, Golaknath's judgment, it was completely against the government. So hence Indira Gandhi felt it was judiciary which was actually becoming a stumbling block for her socialist initiatives. She went to the people. She promised them that if she is re-elected again, there is going to be a complete revamp of the constitution itself. And yes, the people gave her a very great majority even compared to the previous years. So with that kind of majority, she appointed the Swaran Singh's committee to have a relook at the constitution to change whatever provisions were not in tune with the needs of the time. Based on the recommendations of Swaran Singh's committee, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment was implemented. So if we can link all these aspects together and then arrive at how basic structure was evolved, so that would be the very beautiful way of preparing for this examination rather than just taking a particular amendment and just memorizing them time over again and again. So that will not be very helpful. So at least those amendments which are very, very significant in the way constitution itself has evolved and constitution itself has undergone a change over a period of time. At least those amendments you need to be very, very specific about. Okay. So this is an other area which has been asked in the previous years question. So out of 12 questions, two of them were from the conceptual areas. Three of them were from these areas. And what about the other questions? The other questions from every other part of your Lakshmi Khan textbook. Say for example, one of the questions that was asked was, under which schedule the constitution of India can the transfer of tribal land to private parties for mining be declared null and void. So the options given, third schedule, fifth, ninth and 12th. Of course, ninth schedule, it declares, it immunizes certain laws. 12th schedule is for anti-defection law. And you're just left with third schedule and fifth schedule. It's very, very simple to choose from. So just that you need to know what is the constitutional treatment? How does the constitutional try to protect certain vulnerable groups for SC and ST? Yes, we do have certain sections from article 330 to 338. Whereas for tribals, what are the protections that are given? Apart from the reservations, which are the temporary provisions in the constitution, apart from the reservations in legislatures and in employment opportunities, is there any other safeguard to protect the unique cultural distinctiveness of tribals? Yes, we do have the fifth schedule and sixth schedule provisions. So just by keeping in mind when you go through these chapters that this particular provision in the constitution has been brought out with a specific intent in mind. If you're able to keep that intact in your mind when you go through your books, I'm sure you'll be able to manage all the other questions also. So out of 12 questions, 11 questions are directly from the textbooks. We have no other excuse for not knowing them because the competition is such that the serious aspirant will all be very, very clear about these questions. And the other question alone, yes, you do have flexibility because that was a question which was asked, I'm sure, which nobody would be knowing the answer for that. Maybe by intelligent reduction, a few of the aspirants might have got it right. But that's okay. The question was with respect to the state legislatures. If there is no rule in a particular matter, should the state legislature follow the Lok Sabha rule or not? That was the question. So there is no harm in not knowing the answer for this question. But for all the other 11 questions, I'm sure you have to be very, very well prepared. And when you prepare, always keep in mind the broader aspects of polity, the broader aspects of how history has shaped polity, starting from 1919 and so the way dual legislatures have evolved, the way federalism has evolved as a result of government of India at 1935. Why did the Britishers go for a federal model for India, even though federalism was a concept that was completely alien to them. Even in Britain, they don't have a concept of division of powers and functions. But in India, they had gone for a federal setup. What can be the possible reason for that? Think about those broader, bigger concepts of polity. That is what will actually make the reading of polity also more interesting. And I think this is what I have to share with you for the upcoming prelims. And keep practicing a lot of tests, make mistakes, immediately go to the NCRTs, revise and make yourself confident with respect to the concepts. And it is just by repetition, again and again for the next two months. By solving questions, going back to books, finding out the mistakes, rectifying them, strengthening yourself with the weaker areas. That's the only way how you can actually end up getting very good marks in the examination. Thank you. All the best.