Important News Articles & Editorial Analysis
Table of Contents
- Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 Passed in Lok Sabha Indian PolityPage 05 · GS II
- Bangladesh Urges India to Expedite Sheikh Hasina’s Extradition International RelationsPage 06 · GS II
- Agasthyamalai Eviction Orders and the Silencing of the Forest Rights Act EnvironmentPage 07 · GS III
- UPI and the Cost of Policy Reversal: MDR Returns Indian EconomyPage 10 · GS III
- Why Handloom Remains a Key Part of India’s Economy Indian EconomyPage 10 · GS III
- Editorial: English in India — A Language That Has Earned Its Place GovernancePage 08 · GS II · Editorial
Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 Passed in Lok Sabha
The Lok Sabha passed The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 by voice vote without discussion. The Bill replaces the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and seeks to overhaul the administration, selection process and functioning of 16 major quasi-judicial bodies — including CAT, NGT, NCLAT and ITAT.
Key Highlights of the Bill
National Tribunals Commission (NTC)
Establishes an independent oversight body headquartered in New Delhi to supervise appointments of chairpersons and members across tribunals.
- Composition: Five members — a Chairperson (a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired High Court Chief Justice), two Judicial members and two Technical members with 25+ years of experience.
Uniform Selection Mechanism
The NTC will constitute Search-cum-Selection Committees for tribunal appointments. It mandates single-name recommendations with a waiting list and obliges the Central Government to complete appointments within three months.
Tenure and Age Limits
Standardises tenure at five years, with the upper age limit set at 70 years for Chairpersons and 67 years for Members.
Digital Transparency
Introduces a National Tribunals Data Grid (NTDG) — a central repository of case records across all tribunals, on the model of the National Judicial Data Grid.
Constitutional Basis of Tribunals
| Basis | Article 323A | Article 323B |
|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter | Administrative tribunals for public service matters | Tribunals for taxation, land reforms, foreign exchange and other specified matters |
| Who May Establish | Parliament only | Parliament or State Legislatures |
| Hierarchy | Provides for a single central tribunal and State tribunals | Permits a hierarchy of tribunals |
| Source | Both inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee | |
Judicial Precedents and Separation of Powers
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Tribunal decisions remain subject to High Court judicial review under Articles 226/227; judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded. |
| Madras Bar Association Cases (2010, 2020, 2021) | Struck down short tenures and heavy executive interference; the Supreme Court repeatedly directed the creation of an independent National Tribunals Commission to uphold judicial independence and the separation of powers under Article 50. |
India Implications
- A statutory NTC finally institutionalises what the Supreme Court has demanded for over a decade, potentially ending the cycle of legislation being struck down and re-enacted.
- The three-month appointment deadline directly targets chronic vacancies that have paralysed bodies such as NCLAT and DRTs, with knock-on effects on insolvency resolution and credit recovery timelines.
- Single-name recommendations reduce executive discretion in picking from panels — a long-standing grievance about backdoor executive control over quasi-judicial bodies.
- The National Tribunals Data Grid can generate the first reliable pendency data across tribunals, enabling evidence-based bench strength and infrastructure planning.
- Passage without discussion raises questions about legislative scrutiny of laws that directly touch judicial independence.
Conclusion
The creation of the National Tribunals Commission addresses chronic vacancies, administrative delays and the judicial independence concerns raised by the apex court. However, prompt government action on the Commission’s recommendations and adequate infrastructural backing will remain the true test of whether India’s quasi-judicial ecosystem becomes more efficient.
Q. The L. Chandra Kumar judgment (1997) is significant because the Supreme Court held that:
- A. Tribunal decisions are completely immune from judicial review.
- B. Judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure and cannot be completely excluded.
- C. Tribunals are unconstitutional institutions.
- D. Parliament cannot establish any tribunal.
Click to reveal answer
Ans: B The Constitution Bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the basic structure. Tribunals may act as courts of first instance, but their orders remain open to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the jurisdictional High Court.
“Tribunalisation of justice can improve specialised adjudication, but excessive executive control can undermine judicial independence.” Critically examine.10 Marks · 150 Words
Bangladesh Urges India to Expedite Sheikh Hasina’s Extradition
Bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh are at a delicate juncture as Dhaka urges New Delhi to expedite the extradition of deposed former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Following a high-level meeting between the Indian envoy and Bangladesh’s leadership, both sides expressed a desire to stabilise diplomatic ties through a “people-centric approach” while managing domestic political and legal pressures.
Deep Analysis of Key News Points
Formal Request for Extradition
Bangladesh has officially pressed India to expedite Sheikh Hasina’s extradition under existing bilateral mechanisms, following her virtual press engagements from New Delhi.
Cross-Border Security Concerns
Beyond high-profile political figures, Dhaka has highlighted cross-border security cooperation, requesting the handover of suspects involved in domestic assassinations who are believed to have fled across the border.
Institutional Respect and Sovereignty
Bangladesh raised concerns over political statements issued from foreign soil, emphasising that international law requires respect for sovereign state institutions and judicial sanctity.
Pragmatic Diplomatic Continuity
Despite the friction, ongoing engagements — including invitations to multilateral summits such as BRICS — indicate a shared intent to prevent security cooperation and economic ties from stalling.
Static Dimension: India–Bangladesh Extradition Treaty (2013, Amended 2016)
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Dual Criminality Principle | The offence must be punishable under the laws of both nations, with imprisonment of at least one year. |
| Political Offence Exception (Article 6) | Allows refusal if the offence is deemed political — but serious crimes such as murder, terrorism and other heinous offences are explicitly excluded from political immunity. |
| Grounds for Refusal (Article 8) | Extradition may be denied under Section 29 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962, or under treaty provisions, if the request appears to be made in bad faith, is politically motivated, or violates principles of natural justice. |
| 2016 Amendment | Eased the evidentiary threshold — a warrant issued by a competent court of the requesting country is sufficient, removing the need to furnish detailed evidence. |
Strategic Imperatives
Bangladesh is the linchpin of India’s “Neighbourhood First” and “Act East” policies, and is vital for the security of Northeast India and for regional connectivity through BBIN and BIMSTEC.
India Implications
- India faces a classic legal–strategic dilemma: rejecting the request risks straining ties with a pivotal neighbour, while accepting it may be read as endorsing politically driven prosecution.
- Northeast connectivity — transit corridors, the Chattogram and Mongla port arrangements, and the Agartala–Akhaura rail link — depends on a working relationship with Dhaka regardless of who governs.
- Any deterioration creates space for third-party strategic influence in the Bay of Bengal littoral, directly affecting India’s maritime and energy interests.
- Insurgency management in the Northeast rests on cooperative border policing; the request for handover of criminal suspects is a reciprocal expectation India itself has relied on historically.
- India’s handling will set a precedent for how it treats political asylum versus treaty obligation across the neighbourhood.
Conclusion
Navigating the legal intricacies of the bilateral Extradition Treaty while upholding democratic values requires steady, standard diplomacy. For long-term stability, India and Bangladesh must sustain institutional security partnerships and robust economic channels, insulating core bilateral interests from immediate political shifts.
Q. Which of the following is NOT generally associated with the concept of extradition?
- A. Surrender of an accused person to another state.
- B. Bilateral or multilateral treaty arrangements.
- C. Judicial and executive scrutiny.
- D. Automatic transfer without consideration of treaty conditions.
Click to reveal answer
Ans: D Extradition is never automatic. It requires a treaty or reciprocity arrangement, satisfaction of dual criminality, a magisterial inquiry under the Extradition Act, 1962, and a final decision by the Central Government. Options A, B and C are all standard features of the process.
How can India balance sovereignty, the rule of law, human rights and bilateral obligations while responding to an extradition request from a neighbouring country?10 Marks · 150 Words
Agasthyamalai Eviction Orders and the Silencing of the Forest Rights Act
The Forest Department’s eviction notices in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve (ABR) — issued under Supreme Court directives following Central Empowered Committee (CEC) reports — highlight the persistent friction between top-down wildlife conservation and statutory tribal rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
Key Issues and Critical Analysis
Violation of Statutory Safeguards
Section 4(5) of the FRA strictly prohibits the eviction of forest dwellers until the claim recognition and verification process is fully completed. Eviction notices issued mid-process are therefore legally vulnerable.
Data Vacuum on Encroachment
Authorities have failed to segregate genuine FRA claims from illegal encroachments, rendering the eviction data on which orders are based arbitrary and unreliable.
Misinterpretation of Legal Thresholds
- Residence Rule: Courts often incorrectly require Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) to prove 75-year (three-generation) occupation of the exact claimed parcel, rather than residency in the region prior to 13 December 2005.
- Livelihood Exclusions: The FRA explicitly defines “bona fide livelihood needs” to include grazing and the sale of surplus produce, yet courts penalise commercial and agricultural activity uniformly.
Institutional and Judicial Failure
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the nodal body for the FRA, has remained passive, while judicial orders have favoured strict environmental law over statutory rights — risking penal consequences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Related Static Dimensions
| Element | Key Facts |
|---|---|
| Forest Rights Act, 2006 | Vests Individual Forest Rights (IFR) and Community Forest Rights (CFR) on lands occupied before 13 December 2005. The Gram Sabha is the primary authority to initiate and verify claims before sub-divisional and district-level review. |
| Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve | Spans about 3,500 sq. km across Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Key protected zones include Kalakkad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur–Megamalai Tiger Reserve and Periyar Tiger Reserve. |
| Central Empowered Committee | A body set up by the Supreme Court to monitor environmental enforcement under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. |
India Implications
- Roughly 200 million people depend on forests for some part of their livelihood; how ABR is settled will set a template for tiger reserve relocations nationwide.
- Weak Community Forest Rights recognition undermines India’s own climate commitments, since CFR-holding Gram Sabhas have demonstrably improved forest cover in Odisha and Maharashtra.
- Eviction without settled claims exposes officials to prosecution under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, creating administrative paralysis rather than conservation.
- The dispute exposes a structural gap between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, with no binding mechanism to reconcile conservation orders and rights law.
- For hill states including Himachal Pradesh, where FRA implementation and nautor land claims remain contested, the reasoning applied here will directly shape state-level practice.
Conclusion
Conservation goals cannot supersede statutory human rights. State administrations must halt forced relocations, complete Gram Sabha-led claim verification, and adopt a co-management model that balances ecological restoration with rights-based governance.
Q. Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 is significant because it:
- A. Prohibits all commercial activities inside forests.
- B. Restricts eviction of eligible forest-dwelling communities until the recognition and verification process is complete.
- C. Transfers ownership of all forest land to Gram Sabhas.
- D. Establishes the National Forest Rights Commission.
Click to reveal answer
Ans: B Section 4(5) is the FRA’s core protective safeguard: no member of a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. There is no “National Forest Rights Commission” under the Act.
“Conservation cannot be sustainable when the statutory rights of forest-dwelling communities are ignored.” Examine in the context of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.10 Marks · 150 Words
UPI and the Cost of Policy Reversal: MDR Returns
The Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 amends Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, giving the government legal authority to levy a Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) of 0.25%–0.5% on UPI transactions exceeding ₹2,000. Positioned as a targeted measure covering only about 5% of transaction volume, it in fact encompasses nearly 65% of transaction value — sparking a sharp debate on digital economy policy and financial inclusion.
Deep Analysis: Key Issues and Economic Consequences
Policy Inconsistency and Shift in Strategy
- Reverses a decade-long zero-MDR policy that successfully incentivised cash-to-digital migration after demonetisation (2016).
- Reflects a tendency to tax visible digital transactions — similar to the 18% GST on credit card interest and fees — risking economic distortions across payment rails.
Two-Sided Market Dynamics and Tax Incidence
- In a two-sided market of consumers and merchants, competitive pressure prevents banks and Payment Service Providers (PSPs) from easily passing costs on to either side.
- Cost Absorption Hazard: Intermediaries are likely to absorb the levy, reducing capital allocation for platform reliability, fraud mitigation, cybersecurity and expansion.
Impact on Financial Inclusion and Formalisation
- UPI’s primary dividend is a verifiable digital trail for micro and small enterprises, enabling flow-based lending and broadening the direct tax base.
- Taxing the transaction rail incentivises a return to cash at the margin, weakening financial inclusion and digital credit profiling.
Market Distortion versus Economic Efficiency
- Payment mode selection should be driven by efficiency, business scale and transaction cost — not by tax-induced distortions.
- Once enabled legally under Section 10A, initially nominal rates risk expanding over time, diminishing UPI’s compounding network effects.
| Parameter | Zero-MDR Regime (2020–2026) | Proposed MDR Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Section 10A, Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 — prescribed nil charge | Section 10A as amended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 |
| Charge | Nil on person-to-merchant UPI and RuPay debit card transactions | 0.25%–0.5% on UPI transactions above ₹2,000 |
| Coverage | Universal exemption | ~5% of transaction volume but ~65% of transaction value |
| Policy Rationale | Digital adoption as a public good; funded through budgetary incentive schemes | Sustainable revenue for banks and PSPs to fund infrastructure |
| Principal Risk | Fiscal cost of reimbursement to banks and PSPs | Reversal at the margin toward cash; erosion of formalisation gains |
Related Static Dimensions
Indian Economy and Digital Public Infrastructure
- DPI Debate: Public good versus fee-for-service in maintaining public digital rails.
- Tax Economics: Tax incidence, deadweight loss and revenue elasticity applied to digital payments.
- Financial Inclusion: Credit enablement via digital footprints and cash-to-digital migration mechanisms.
- Governance and Policy: Regulatory predictability shapes investor confidence in fintech and banking; statutory anchors lie in the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 and the Income Tax Act.
India Implications
- UPI processes more transactions each month than most of the world’s card networks combined; even a small levy on 65% of value is a macro-scale intervention, not a marginal one.
- Small merchants operating on thin margins may split bills or revert to cash to stay below the ₹2,000 threshold, defeating the formalisation objective.
- Flow-based lending to MSMEs, built on UPI data trails, could contract precisely where credit penetration is weakest — rural and semi-urban India.
- For a hill economy such as Himachal Pradesh, where tourism and horticulture transactions cluster above ₹2,000, the levy falls disproportionately on small traders and homestays.
- Policy reversal weakens the India Stack export narrative, where zero-cost public rails have been the central selling point in international partnerships.
Conclusion
Levying charges on UPI transactions risks weakening the very digital habits, formalisation and financial inclusion benefits built over a decade. While sustainable revenue models are necessary to fund infrastructure upgrades for banks and PSPs, policymakers should preserve UPI’s zero-friction advantage as a public good and seek infrastructure funding through budgetary support or general tax buoyancy rather than by taxing transaction rails directly.
“India’s digital payment ecosystem represents a public-good challenge: ensuring universal access while maintaining financial sustainability.” Discuss in the context of UPI and MDR.10 Marks · 150 Words
Why Handloom Remains a Key Part of India’s Economy
The handloom sector in India is both an economic backbone and a symbol of civilisational identity. Beyond its historic connection to the Swadeshi Movement (1905) and self-reliance, it remains a vital manufacturing enterprise. Often mischaracterised as a mere heritage craft, handloom in fact acts as a rural economic stabiliser and an untapped vehicle for India’s soft power.
Strategic Economic and Social Significance
Livelihoods and Rural Employment
The second-largest employer after agriculture, supporting ~35 lakh weavers and allied workers across 31+ lakh households. Nearly 90% of looms are rural, curbing distress migration.
Gender Empowerment and Inclusivity
Women constitute over 70% of the workforce, driving grassroots financial inclusion. The sector also employs significant populations from SC, ST and OBC communities.
Capital-Light Output
Generates high employment with minimal capital outlay while contributing roughly 15% of the nation’s total cloth production.
Key Challenges Facing the Sector
Diminishing Returns and Intergenerational Drift
Low wages and long working hours push younger generations away, threatening centuries of design vocabulary and tacit skill transfer.
Fragmented Markets and Counterfeits
Lack of direct market access leaves weavers reliant on middlemen, while powerloom products are illegally passed off as handloom, undercutting authentic artisans.
Inadequate Economic Measurement
Handloom lacks precise data mapping of its direct contribution to GDP, exports, tax revenue and household incomes — which in turn weakens the case for policy support.
Policy Interventions and Success Stories
| Scheme / Instrument | Focus |
|---|---|
| National Handloom Development Programme (NHDP) | Skill development, e-commerce integration and cluster development. |
| Weaver MUDRA Scheme & Raw Material Supply Scheme | Subsidised credit and discounted yarn access for weavers. |
| GI Tagging & India Handloom Brand (IHB) | Protects regional identity (for example Tangaliya, Gollabhama) and ensures quality control. |
| Revival Case Studies | Tangaliya weaving (Gujarat) and Siddipet Gollabhama sarees (Telangana) show that contemporary design combined with market linkage revives endangered crafts. |
Related Static Dimensions
History, Culture and Economy
- History & Culture: Swadeshi Movement (1905) and economic nationalism; Indian textiles in global trade history before the Industrial Revolution. National Handloom Day is observed on 7 August, marking the launch of the Swadeshi Movement in 1905.
- MSME & Rural Non-Farm Sector: Diversification of the rural economy away from agriculture.
- Intellectual Property Rights: Geographical Indications under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
- Inland & Export Manufacturing: Handloom’s contribution to sustainable luxury and green textiles.
India Implications
- Handloom is the most capital-efficient job creator available to Indian policy — a decisive advantage where employment elasticity of growth has been falling.
- With over 70% women workers, sector support is simultaneously a female labour force participation intervention.
- GI protection converts craft into a defensible export asset, guarding against cultural misappropriation in global fashion markets.
- For Himachal Pradesh, the Kullu shawl, Kinnauri shawl and Chamba rumal are GI-tagged handloom products where the same challenges — middlemen dependence, powerloom counterfeits and weak measurement — directly apply.
- Repositioning handloom as premium and aspirational aligns with Viksit Bharat and sustainable-luxury demand, rather than treating it as welfare.
Conclusion
Handloom is not a relic of India’s past but a strategic asset for its future. Repositioning it from a “charity-based craft” to an aspirational, sustainable, premium industry for Gen Z and global markets will transform it into an engine for Viksit Bharat. The sector’s true success will be judged by whether weaving remains a profitable, dignified and attractive career for future generations.
Q. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 primarily provides protection for:
- A. Individual inventions.
- B. Literary and artistic works.
- C. Goods associated with a particular geographical origin.
- D. Industrial designs only.
Click to reveal answer
Ans: C A Geographical Indication identifies goods as originating from a definite territory where a given quality, reputation or characteristic is essentially attributable to that origin. Inventions are covered by the Patents Act, literary and artistic works by the Copyright Act, and industrial designs by the Designs Act.
Discuss the significance of India’s traditional handloom and textile traditions in strengthening its cultural soft power.10 Marks · 150 Words
Editorial: English in India — A Language That Has Earned Its Place
Context: A recent observation by the Supreme Court of India on whether English can be considered an indigenous or Indian language has rekindled the national debate on language, education policy and identity. In his analysis, Prof. Y.L. Srinivas argues that framing language in India as a zero-sum binary — English versus Indian languages — is historically misleading and politically counterproductive. Rather than a colonial hangover, English has been appropriated, naturalised and transformed by Indian society into a vehicle for Indian aspirations and pan-Indian multilingualism.
Key Points of Analysis
Transformation from Colonial Tool to Instrument of Empowerment
- Historical Context: Introduced by British rulers for administrative convenience, English was rapidly appropriated by Indian reformers and freedom fighters — Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dadabhai Naoroji, Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi — to articulate Indian nationalism and expose colonial exploitation.
- Post-Independence Integration: The Constituent Assembly adopted the Munshi–Ayyangar formula, designating Hindi as the Official Language while retaining English for official Union purposes, the higher judiciary and inter-state administration.
Demographics and Aspirational Value
- Reach and Scale: According to Census 2011, nearly 129 million Indians spoke English as a first, second or third language — among the largest English-speaking populations globally.
- Socio-Economic Mobility: English functions as a primary language of higher education, competitive examinations, research, technology and global trade, making it a key driver of social mobility.
Linguistic Naturalisation and Creativity
- Indian English: As predicted by novelist Raja Rao (1938), English in India has acquired its own rhythm, vocabulary and idioms tailored to Indian social realities.
- Literary Recognition: Recognised by the Sahitya Akademi, Indian Writing in English — R.K. Narayan, Amitav Ghosh and others — demonstrates that English can authentically express Indian ethos, mythology and cultural nuance.
Multilingualism over the Monolingual Binary
Modern Indian society thrives on additive multilingualism. English does not displace regional tongues such as Tamil, Telugu, Hindi or Marathi; it serves as a pragmatic bridge across diverse linguistic groups, both internally and internationally.
Related Static Dimensions
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| Article 343 & Official Languages Act, 1963 | Regulates the official language of the Union and the continued associate status of English. |
| Article 348 | Mandates the use of English in the Supreme Court and High Courts until Parliament legislates otherwise. |
| Eighth Schedule | Contains 22 recognised languages; English is currently not included, though demands for inclusion or constitutional re-evaluation persist. |
| Three-Language Formula | Formulated by the Kothari Commission (1968) and reaffirmed in NEP 2020 to promote mother tongue and regional language instruction while maintaining link languages. |
Society, Education and the Economy
- Multilingual Unity: Promoting regional languages under NEP 2020 and recognising Indian English are complementary, supporting India’s pluralistic composite culture (Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb).
- Service Sector Edge: India’s large English-proficient workforce provides a competitive global advantage in IT, ITES, pharmaceuticals and international consulting.
- Equity in Education: Expanding quality language education — in both regional languages and functional English — reduces the urban–rural divide in employment opportunities.
India Implications
- Language policy directly determines access to opportunity: where English instruction is poor, the urban–rural divide is reproduced in the labour market.
- The debate is inseparable from federal politics, since resistance to language imposition has historically shaped Centre–State relations in southern states.
- NEP 2020’s mother-tongue instruction goal must be implemented without foreclosing functional English, or it risks widening rather than closing opportunity gaps.
- For a state such as Himachal Pradesh, where government schooling in Hindi meets an English-medium competitive examination and service economy, bridge-building in language instruction is a direct governance concern.
- Indian English is itself a soft power asset — in publishing, higher education exports and global services — that a purely nativist framing would forfeit.
Conclusion
Language is defined not merely by its geographic origin, but by the community that inhabits and transforms it. Over two centuries, English in India has evolved from an instrument of imperial rule into a vibrant medium of modern Indian self-expression, governance and economic empowerment. Rather than enforcing a rigid dichotomy between indigenous tongues and English, India’s linguistic strategy must focus on nurturing robust multilingualism — preserving regional heritage while retaining the global bridge that Indian English provides.
“India’s constitutional language policy represents accommodation rather than linguistic uniformity.” Examine.10 Marks · 150 Words
RAMAN ACADEMY — Inspiring Excellence
North Oak, Sanjauli, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh – 171006
Contact: +91-7649911100 · ramanacademyshimla@gmail.com
