UPSC Current Affairs 17 June 2026

17 June 2026 Riyasat IAS Mentorship — Daily Current Affairs UPSC CSE 2026-27 | GS Paper 2, 3 | Environment | Polity | IR | Science | English Medium

Topics Covered Today (5)

1. Environment vs Development — GS 3 (Environment, Biodiversity, Tribal Rights, SDGs)
2. GRAPES-3 and Muons — GS 3 (Science & Technology, Space Weather, Atmospheric Science)
3. US-Iran Agreement and West Asia Geopolitics — GS 2 (International Relations, India’s Energy Security)
4. US-Iran Agreement — Historical and Strategic Analysis (Deep Dive) — GS 2 (IR, India’s Foreign Policy)
5. Tenth Schedule and Anti-Defection Law — GS 2 (Indian Polity, Constitutional Provisions)

Topic 1: Environment vs Development — Forests, Livelihood, and Biodiversity GS Paper 3 | Environment | Biodiversity Conservation | Tribal Rights | SDGs 1 & 15 | Forest Policy

Why in the News? A landmark global study published in Nature Sustainability — analysing 322 tropical forests across 15 countries from 1993 to 2017 — has established that poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation are not competing goals but two sides of the same coin. The research directly challenges India’s “Fortress Model” of conservation and strengthens the case for community-inclusive forest management.

Key Research Findings

Finding	Detail
Study scope	322 tropical forests | 15 countries | 24-year period (1993–2017) | Published: Nature Sustainability
Core conclusion	Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation are interdependent — not competing objectives
Forest degradation driver	“Lack of options” — not poverty itself — drives forest destruction; when no livelihood alternatives exist, communities intensify forest dependence
Tree diversity impact	Communities fully dependent on firewood and traditional forest extraction show sharp decline in tree species diversity
Positive correlation	Areas with alternative livelihoods (agriculture, horticulture, eco-tourism) show significantly better tree diversity and ecological stability
India-specific scale	~275 million people (27.5 crore) depend on forests for daily livelihood in India

The Fortress Model: India’s Conservation Challenge

India’s current conservation framework predominantly follows the “Fortress Model” — a protectionist approach that prioritises the exclusion of human populations from protected areas. “Consequently, despite its objective of reducing pressure on wildlife habitats, this model has produced a series of unintended consequences.”

• “Furthermore, national parks and sanctuaries become ecological islands surrounded by hostile human populations, thereby increasing rather than reducing human-wildlife conflict.”
• Corridor Degradation: Wildlife corridors connecting protected areas are overexploited by surrounding populations who lack alternative livelihoods — blocking large mammal migration routes
• Policy-Implementation Gap: Government schemes providing alternatives (PM Ujjwala Yojana LPG subsidies, alternative stoves) are insufficiently funded and lack local participation mechanisms, limiting their actual impact on forest pressure

Way Forward: Community-Centred Conservation

A. Madhav Gadgil’s Decentralisation Framework

Ecologist Madhav Gadgil — whose Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (2011) recommended large-scale community-managed conservation — argues that genuine conservation requires giving local communities legal rights, financial incentives, and decision-making authority. Combining traditional ecological knowledge with modern science is the most durable approach.

B. Successful Indian Case Studies

Region	Initiative	Outcome
Ladakh	Snow Leopard Conservancy (Community Homestays + Livestock Insurance)	Sharp reduction in human-wildlife conflict; local income increase through wildlife tourism
Sindhudurg, Maharashtra	Mangrove Co-management Committees	Sustainable aquaculture + eco-tourism alongside active mangrove conservation
Arunachal Pradesh	Hornbill Nest Adoption Programme (NCF)	Former Nyishi hunters now working as hornbill protectors and forest patrol teams

C. SDG Convergence: SDG 1 and SDG 15

The study formally validates what practitioners have long argued: SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) are structurally linked. Progress on one without the other is neither sustainable nor achievable. India’s forest policy framework — PESA 1996, Forest Rights Act 2006, and the proposed Forest (Conservation) Amendment 2023 — must be evaluated through this convergence lens.

UPSC Note UPSC Mains connection: This topic links Environment (GS 3) with Tribal Rights and Governance (GS 2). Key legislative anchors — PESA 1996, Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA), National Forest Policy 1988, and India’s Biodiversity Act 2002 — are all examinable alongside this study.

Practice Question “The conservation of forests is not possible by displacing local communities, but only by making them partners.” Critically analyse this statement in light of recent studies and practical examples. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Practice Question With reference to India’s forest conservation framework, consider the following statements: 1. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognises the rights of forest-dwelling communities over forest land they have traditionally occupied. 2. Under the PESA Act, 1996, Gram Sabhas in Schedule V areas have the authority to manage minor forest produce. 3. The “Fortress Model” of conservation has been consistently found to reduce human-wildlife conflict by excluding communities from protected areas. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only   (B) 2 and 3 only   (C) 1 only   (D) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (A) 1 and 2 only — Statement 3 is incorrect: the Fortress Model has been associated with increased human-wildlife conflict rather than reduction, as it isolates parks within hostile human landscapes and removes livelihood alternatives from surrounding communities.

Topic 2: GRAPES-3 and Muons — India’s Cosmic Ray Telescope GS Paper 3 | Science & Technology | Space Weather | Upper Atmosphere Monitoring | TIFR

Why in the News? Researchers from Mumbai (TIFR), Kochi, and Japan have developed a groundbreaking technique using 22 years of data from the GRAPES-3 telescope in Ooty. The technique enables real-time, high-accuracy monitoring of Earth’s upper atmospheric temperature and the Sun’s magnetic field — with significant implications for weather modelling and solar storm early-warning systems.

What is GRAPES-3?

Attribute	Detail
Full Name	Gamma Ray Astronomy PeV EnergieS-3
Type	NOT a conventional light-based telescope — it is a cosmic-ray tracker and muon detector
Location	Ooty (Ootacamund), Tamil Nadu
Partnership	India (TIFR Mumbai) + Japan (Osaka City University) — joint international project
Core Function	Creates a high-resolution map of invisible cosmic forces affecting Earth
Structure	16 independent modules, each containing 232 proportional counters (steel tubes)
Gas Mixture	Argon + Methane mixture inside each steel tube, with a thin tungsten wire at the centre
Data Coverage	22 years of continuous data used in the new technique

How GRAPES-3 Detects Muons — The Working Mechanism

• A muon from space passes through the outer concrete shielding layers (which filter out low-energy particles)
• The high-energy muon enters the argon-methane filled steel tube
• The muon ionises the gas molecules, releasing electrons
• Freed electrons are attracted to the central tungsten wire, generating an electrical pulse
• This pulse is recorded and processed by the telescope’s detection system
• Tubes arranged in four layers at right angles to each other allow scientists to calculate the precise path and angle of the incoming muon

Key Concepts

A. Cosmic Rays

Highly energetic subatomic particles originating from deep space that travel at speeds approaching that of light. When cosmic rays collide with particles in Earth’s upper atmosphere, they produce secondary particles — including muons.

B. What are Muons?

Property	Detail
Type	Fundamental particle — similar to an electron but approximately 207 times heavier
Origin	Secondary product of cosmic ray collisions with upper atmosphere particles
Lifespan	Extremely short — about 2.2 microseconds
Why they reach Earth	Despite short lifespan, their near-light-speed velocity causes time dilation (relativistic effect), allowing them to travel to Earth’s surface
Penetration ability	Can penetrate thick layers of concrete — which conventional particles cannot
UPSC relevance	Demonstrates application of special relativity (time dilation) in practical science

Significance and Applications

1. Upper Atmosphere Temperature Monitoring

Fluctuations in upper atmospheric temperature directly affect the number and behaviour of muons reaching Earth’s surface. The GRAPES-3 technique translates changes in muon flux into real-time temperature readings for the upper atmosphere — improving weather and climate models, particularly for stratospheric and mesospheric processes that current satellite instruments cannot directly measure with this precision.

2. Space Weather and Solar Storm Early Warning

The Sun’s magnetic field and solar storms (Coronal Mass Ejections / CMEs) alter the path and intensity of cosmic rays entering Earth’s atmosphere — and consequently the muon flux detected by GRAPES-3. This correlation makes the telescope a potential early-warning system for incoming solar storms, which can damage satellites, power grids, and communication infrastructure.

UPSC Note UPSC angle: GRAPES-3 is directly relevant to GS 3 Science & Technology. Key linkages: TIFR (Tata Institute of Fundamental Research) as a premier Indian research institution; India-Japan scientific cooperation; practical applications of cosmic ray research in atmospheric science and disaster preparedness.

Practice Question With reference to the GRAPES-3 project, consider the following statements: 1. It is an advanced radio telescope located in Ooty, Tamil Nadu, that studies light from distant galaxies. 2. It uses a mixture of argon and methane gases to detect cosmic rays and muon particles coming from space. 3. It can be used for real-time monitoring of Earth’s upper atmospheric temperature and the Sun’s magnetic field. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only   (B) 2 and 3 only   (C) 1 and 3 only   (D) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (B) 2 and 3 only — Statement 1 is incorrect: GRAPES-3 is not a radio telescope and does not study light from galaxies. It is a cosmic-ray tracker and muon detector that measures energetic particles rather than electromagnetic radiation.

Topic 3: US-Iran Agreement and West Asia Geopolitics — India’s Perspective GS Paper 2 | International Relations | West Asia | India’s Foreign Policy | Energy Security

⚡ Why in the News? A digitally signed ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran (June 14, 2026) marked a significant shift in West Asia’s geopolitical landscape. While the agreement reopens the Strait of Hormuz and pauses hostilities, it is widely viewed as a fragile arrangement — covering deep regional rivalries rather than resolving them. India, initially tilted toward Israel-US positions, was forced into a more balanced stance when Hormuz closure directly threatened its energy imports.

Strategic Gains and Losses from the Agreement

Actor	What They Gain	What They Lose / Challenge
Iran	Oil sanctions lifted; Strait of Hormuz reopened unconditionally; frozen assets released (~$100B+); international legitimacy restored	Must halt nuclear enrichment; hardliner opposition domestically; no guarantee of sustained US commitment
United States	Hostilities paused; Hormuz reopened for global trade; domestic political dividend	Not a comprehensive settlement; Iran retains proxy network; credibility questioned by allies
Gulf States (GCC)	Immediate reduction in regional tension	Realise US security guarantee is unreliable; heavy economic losses from conflict disruption; internal Saudi-UAE rifts exposed
Israel	Ceasefire reduces immediate threat	Views agreement as a “betrayal” — objective of Iran regime change abandoned; October 2026 elections complicate Netanyahu’s retreat

Emerging Rifts in the Gulf and Regional Architecture

• Abraham Accords Illusion: Gulf nations that normalised with Israel under US pressure now recognise that American security cover is not unconditional — a reassessment with long-term geopolitical consequences
• GCC Internal Fractures: Saudi Arabia and UAE are at odds over Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. The UAE’s exit from OPEC directly challenges Saudi Arabia’s energy policy dominance
• The NATO Analogy: West Asia risks repeating Europe’s mistake of building a security architecture that excludes a major regional power. Any durable West Asian security framework must include Iran — as NATO’s expansion eastward without Russian inclusion contributed to the Ukraine crisis

Strategic Concerns and Implications for India

India’s Interest	Threat / Impact from West Asia Instability
Energy Security	India imports ~85% of crude oil; Strait of Hormuz closure directly disrupts supply; any disruption raises domestic fuel prices and fiscal stress
Gulf Diaspora and Remittances	~8 million Indians work in GCC nations; GCC economic slowdown reduces remittances — one of India’s largest foreign exchange sources
Chabahar Port and Connectivity	Iran’s geopolitical position is critical for India’s access to Central Asia and Afghanistan via Chabahar — US sanctions on Iran directly complicate this
China-Pakistan Axis	China’s expanding naval presence in West Asia and Pakistan’s growing proximity to the US creates a strategic encirclement concern for India’s regional interests

India’s Way Forward: Strategic Autonomy and Multi-Alignment

• Strategic Autonomy: India must resist pressure to join any single bloc — maintaining independent decision-making on Iran (Chabahar), GCC states (trade, diaspora), and Israel (defence cooperation) simultaneously
• Multi-Alignment: Deepen ties with Iran without abandoning GCC partnerships; maintain defence cooperation with Israel without endorsing all its regional positions
• Hormuz Management: Advocate for an inter-governmental Hormuz management framework at the UN and multilateral forums — India has a direct stake in free passage through this chokepoint
• Inclusive Regional Security: Support a West Asian security dialogue that includes Iran, GCC, Turkey, and other regional stakeholders — fragile bilateral deals cannot substitute for a comprehensive regional architecture

Practice Question “The recent US-Iran agreement in West Asia indicates that political inclusiveness, rather than military force, is indispensable for long-term peace.” In light of this statement, examine the changing geopolitical dynamics in this region and discuss its impacts on India’s strategic and economic interests. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Topic 4: US-Iran Agreement — Historical Background and Long-Term Strategic Shifts GS Paper 2 | IR | West Asia | Nuclear Diplomacy | IRGC | JCPOA | Global South

Why in the News? On June 14, 2026, the US and Iran signed a historic Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), paving the way for cessation of hostilities and resumption of diplomatic talks within 60 days. To understand the full significance of this agreement, its historical roots — from the 1953 CIA coup through the 1979 Islamic Revolution to the current nuclear standoff — must be traced.

Historical Background: How US-Iran Relations Reached This Point

Period / Event	Key Development
1901 — Oil Discovery	Britain and later the US gained strategic stake in Iranian oil — beginning of Western intervention
1953 — CIA Coup (Operation Ajax)	Democratically elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh overthrown; US-backed Shah restored — planted deep anti-American resentment in Iranian political consciousness
Shah’s Westernisation Projects	“White Revolution” and “Great Civilisation” alienated the religious establishment (ulema), the merchant class (bazaaris), and the educated middle class
1979 — Islamic Revolution	Ayatollah Khomeini led a middle-class rebellion against economic stagnation and authoritarianism; established “Velayat-e-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist) — a new anti-US geopolitical doctrine
1980-88 — Iran-Iraq War	Saddam Hussein’s invasion cemented Iran’s spirit of “National Defense”; paradoxically, Israel provided Iran military spares (viewing Saddam as the greater threat); war created the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps / Sepah-e-Pasdaran)
2015 — JCPOA	Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — Iran accepted nuclear enrichment limits in exchange for sanctions relief; a landmark multilateral deal
2018 — US Withdrawal from JCPOA	Trump administration unilaterally withdrew, reimposed maximum pressure sanctions; Iran gradually resumed uranium enrichment
June 2026 — New MoU	Fresh agreement — not a replica of JCPOA; Iran halts enrichment; Hormuz reopens; assets released; talks resuming within 60 days

Why Did This Agreement Happen Now?

• Military Stalemate Recognition: Both sides acknowledged their asymmetric strategies have reached an unresolvable military impasse — Iran’s proxy network and cost-effective warfare vs. US technological superiority and sanctions have mutually cancelled each other out
• Economic Pressure on Both Sides: Hormuz/Bab-al-Mandab closure by Iran’s proxy (Houthis) disrupted global trade, creating severe domestic discontent in Iran while also damaging the US-aligned global economy
• New Iranian Strategic Calculus: Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei’s statements indicate Tehran now views control of the Strait of Hormuz as a more effective geopolitical weapon than nuclear capability — “weapon of mass disruption” over “nuclear obsession”
• Trump’s Diplomatic Leverage Incentive: The current US administration seeks a deal demonstrably “better than Obama’s JCPOA” — with Iran agreeing to export enriched uranium rather than merely capping enrichment

Long-Term Strategic Shifts Triggered by This Crisis

A. Exposure of American Superpower Limits

Iran’s successful resistance demonstrated that high-tech air superiority, advanced battlefield dominance, and comprehensive sanctions have strategic limits. Iran countered with cost-effective strategies, flexible command structure, and resilient supply chains — a model that other middle powers and non-state actors are studying.

B. GCC Disillusionment and Internal Fractures

• US credibility deficit: Gulf nations that joined the Abraham Accords under US pressure suffered economically from conflicts Washington launched without consulting them, and from Iranian retaliation Washington could not shield them from
• Saudi-UAE divergence: Competing interests in Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia have fractured the GCC as a unified bloc; UAE’s exit from OPEC signals the end of Saudi energy policy dominance
• Individual appeasement strategies: Gulf nations may now pursue bilateral arrangements with Iran independent of US framework — a significant shift from the collective security paradigm

C. Resurgence Risk from Non-State Actors

A weakened Iran creates a security vacuum in the broader Middle East. Sunni extremist organisations including Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and IS-Khorasan may exploit this vacuum — a recurring historical pattern from the post-Saddam Iraq experience. This is a critical instability risk that the US-Iran MoU does not address.

Key Terms for UPSC

Term	Definition
JCPOA	Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015) — multilateral nuclear deal between Iran and P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany)
IRGC / Sepah-e-Pasdaran	Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — Iran’s elite ideological military force, separate from the regular army; manages proxy networks in West Asia
Velayat-e-Faqih	Guardianship of the Jurist — Khomeini’s doctrine of political governance by Islamic jurists; foundational constitutional principle of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Strait of Hormuz	Narrow waterway between Iran and Oman through which ~20% of global oil trade passes; closure would constitute a global economic shock
Bab-al-Mandab	Strategic strait between Yemen and Djibouti connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden; disruption by Houthis impacted Suez Canal-linked trade routes
Abraham Accords	2020 normalisation agreements between Israel and UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco — brokered by the US Trump administration
Multi-Alignment	India’s foreign policy approach of maintaining productive relationships with multiple competing powers without formal alliance commitments

Practice Question “The recent US-Iran agreement in West Asia highlights the limits of diplomatic bargaining and the declining credibility of the US as a regional security provider.” Critically analyse this statement and discuss its implications on India’s energy and strategic security. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Topic 5: Tenth Schedule — Anti-Defection Law and Political Mergers GS Paper 2 | Indian Polity | Constitutional Provisions | Parliament | Governance | 52nd Amendment

Why in the News? The anti-defection law continues to be circumvented through political manoeuvres — the AAP Rajya Sabha MP switch (2026) and TMC Lok Sabha MP reorganisation (2026) have reignited debate about the loopholes in Paragraph 4 (Merger) of the Tenth Schedule. Recent cases in Goa, Maharashtra (Shiv Sena), and the NCP split illustrate systematic misuse of “pseudo-merger” claims.

Background: The “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” Culture

The term “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” refers to the 1967 defection of Haryana MLA Gaya Lal, who changed parties multiple times in a single day — symbolising the political instability caused by horse-trading and floor-crossing. Through the 1960s and 1970s, such defections repeatedly destabilised elected state governments.

Constitutional Response: The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 added the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution — popularly known as the Anti-Defection Law. The law provides for disqualification of legislators who violate party discipline.

Structure of the Tenth Schedule

Provision	Content
Basic Disqualification Rule	A legislator is disqualified if they voluntarily give up party membership OR vote against the party whip (direction) in the House
Paragraph 2	Core disqualification provision — the main operative rule
Paragraph 3 (Split — NOW DELETED)	Exemption if 1/3 of legislative party splits to form a new group. Removed by 91st Constitutional Amendment, 2003 due to widespread misuse
Paragraph 4 (Merger — CURRENT LOOPHOLE)	Exemption if the original political party merges with another party AND at least 2/3 of the legislative party members support this merger
Deciding Authority	Speaker (Lok Sabha / State Assembly) or Chairperson (Rajya Sabha / State Council) — final authority on disqualification
Key Distinction	“Political Party” = entire national/state organisation | “Legislative Party” = elected members of that party in a specific House

How Paragraph 4 (Merger) Is Being Misused

1. Pseudo-Original Party Claim

In the Shiv Sena and NCP crises (Maharashtra 2022-23), dissenting groups within the legislative party claimed to be the “real” original political party — attempting to satisfy the merger requirement without an actual party merger. This exploits the ambiguity between “political party” (the organisation) and “legislative party” (elected members in the House).

2. Bulk Defection as Pseudo-Merger

More than 2/3 of a party’s legislators in a House unite and directly join another established party — claiming this as a “merger” even when the original party’s national organisation has not merged. Documented examples: Goa (Congress MLAs joining BJP), Rajya Sabha AAP MPs, and Lok Sabha TMC MPs in 2026.

3. Legal Ambiguity in the Text

A textual reading of Paragraph 4 requires the original political party (the organisation) to merge first, followed by 2/3 of the legislative party approving the merger. In practice, courts have sometimes accepted 2/3 of legislators directly joining another party as satisfying the merger requirement — creating contradictory precedents.

4. Bombay High Court Precedent (Goa)

In 2019, the Bombay High Court upheld the merger of Congress MLAs into the BJP in Goa, even though the Congress party itself did not merge, thereby establishing a problematic precedent that several states have since replicated.

The Speaker’s Role: Constitutional Expectation vs. Political Reality

Constitutional Expectation	Ground Reality
Speaker acts as an impartial, quasi-judicial authority on disqualification petitions	Speakers are elected from the ruling party and routinely delay or decide cases favourably for the ruling dispensation
Disqualification decided on merits within a reasonable timeframe	Cases pending for years — the Nabam Rebia Supreme Court ruling (2016) held Speakers cannot act on disqualification while their own removal motion is pending
Judicial review limited to post-decision challenges	SC in K.M. Singh case (2020) strongly recommended transferring disqualification authority to an independent tribunal headed by a retired judge

Way Forward: Strengthening the Anti-Defection Framework

• Remove Paragraph 4: The 1999 Law Commission report recommended complete abolition of the merger exemption — eliminating the primary legal loophole
• Independent Tribunal: Supreme Court’s K.M. Singh recommendation (2020) — transfer disqualification authority from Speaker to a permanent independent tribunal headed by a retired judge; this eliminates partisan bias
• Individual Accountability Principle: Any legislator defying the party mandate should immediately vacate the seat and seek a fresh mandate from voters — the current system allows seat retention during proceedings
• Supreme Court Clarity: A definitive judgment on the pending constitutional appeals — particularly on the “political party vs. legislative party” distinction in Paragraph 4 — would eliminate the interpretive ambiguity that enables misuse

UPSC Note Mains connection: Anti-defection law is a recurring UPSC Mains topic appearing in questions on Indian democracy, political accountability, and constitutional provisions. Key cases to know: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992 — upheld constitutional validity); Nabam Rebia case (2016); K.M. Singh case (2020); the ongoing Shiv Sena and NCP cases.

Practice Question “Despite constitutional amendments, the provisions of merger under the anti-defection law continue to be misused for political gains.” Critically analyse this statement in the context of recent developments and discuss the limitations of the powers of presiding officers. (15 Marks, 250 Words)

Practice Question With reference to the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements: 1. The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985. 2. The provision allowing one-third of a legislative party to split without disqualification was removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003. 3. Under the current Tenth Schedule, a merger is valid if at least two-thirds of the members of the original political party (national organisation) approve it, irrespective of the legislative party’s position. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only   (B) 2 and 3 only   (C) 1 only   (D) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (A) 1 and 2 only — Statement 3 is incorrect: Paragraph 4 requires two-thirds of the LEGISLATIVE party members (elected members in the House) to support the merger — not the original political party’s national organisation. The confusion between these two categories is precisely the source of the legal ambiguity being misused.

Riyasat IAS Mentorship — Prepare Smarter for UPSC CSE Direct guidance from Riyasat Ali Sir | Hindi & English | 100% Online → Apply at iasmentorship.com/admissions

Useful Links Current Affairs Resources → UPSC Mentorship Program → Foundation Mentorship (English)