The Evening Wrap: It’s only by chance that I came out alive, says Prof. Saibaba

It is only by chance that he could come out alive despite suffering the “brutal” jail life, said former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba after he was released from Nagpur Central Jail on Thursday. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on March 5 set aside his life sentence in a Maoist links case, citing the failure of the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and deeming the sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as “null and void”, and a lack of application of mind by the State authority. Prof. Saibaba, who had been lodged in jail since 2017, after a trial court in Gadchiroli convicted him and others in the case, expressed concern about his health and the need for medical treatment upon his release. “My health is very bad. I can’t talk. I will have to first take medical treatment, and then only I will able to speak,” he said after coming out of the prison. A family member awaited Prof. Saibaba outside the jail premises. The professor said he would be visiting doctors soon. The 57-year-old wheelchair-bound English professor earlier refused to speak to the media about his eight years of incarceration. However, he said he changed his mind after requests from lawyers and media personnel. Describing his prison life as “very rigorous and brutal”, he said: “There was every chance that I would not have come out alive. I had no accessibility inside the prison.” He asked who would bring them back the 10 years of life spent in jail. “I couldn’t pull up, I could not move out of my wheelchair. I could not go to the toilet [on my own], and I could not take a bath. It’s a wonder that I came out of the prison alive today,” the former DU professor said, adding that the cases against him were a fabricated one. Not once but twice, the higher judiciary confirmed that the case was without facts, evidence and any legally viable matter, Prof. Saibaba said. A Division Bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki S.A. Menezes said that the report submitted by the independent authority recommending invocation of UAPA provisions in the case was “cryptic and a laconic half-page communication”. Soon, the Maharashtra government approached the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing after it failed to convince the High Court to stay the implementation of the judgment. Prof. Saibaba had previously served time from 2014 to 2016 before being granted bail in a case for his suspected links with the Maoist rebels. He was arrested by the police of Maharashtra and erstwhile combined Andhra Pradesh, and the Intelligence Bureau, while he was on his way home from Delhi University. The Bench also underscored that the seized pamphlets and electronic data from the suspects only indicated their sympathy towards the outlawed Maoist philosophy. Electoral bonds disclosure | Contempt plea moved against SBI for not disclosing details yet Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on March 7 said the Supreme Court would consider listing a contempt petition against State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Dinesh Kumar Khera for seeking time till June 30 to provide complete details of electoral bonds purchased since April 2019 to anonymously fund political parties. The contempt petition, filed jointly by petitioners Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause, said the Supreme Court, while striking down the electoral bonds scheme as a threat to electoral democracy, had directed the SBI to share details of the bonds sold to anonymous donors and political parties who had benefited from the transactions to the Election Commission of India by March 6, 2024. The Election Commission was ordered to publish the data obtained from the bank on its official website by March 13. However, the bank has put a spoke in the wheel by filing a nine-page application in the Supreme Court on March 4, just two days before the deadline. The bank said it needed time till June end to provide the Election Commission details about the bonds. The information and documents were scattered across its various branches and decoding them was tough and would take time. Making an oral mentioning in court on Thursday, advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cherul D’souza and Neha Rathi, for the contempt petitioners, urged the court to list the contempt plea along with the SBI’s application on Monday (March 11). “Once it (contempt petition) is verified by the Registry, your junior can send an email. I will pass orders,” Chief Justice Chandrachud told Bhushan. The contempt petition said the bank was deliberately trying to ensure that details of donors and the amounts contributed to political parties anonymously were not disclosed to the public before the Lok Sabha elections due in April-May. The petition said the bank’s stand was directly contradictory to an affidavit filed by the Union Government on March 15, 2019, which said information about the bonds were completely traceable and quickly available. The Centre’s affidavit had said that the electoral bonds scheme envisaged a transparent system of acquiring bonds with validated KYC and audit trail. The SBI would record KYC, PAN, details of identity and address in full of all the donors. “The SBI maintains a secret number-based record of donors who buy bonds and the political parties they donate to,” the contempt petition submitted. Each electoral bond had a unique number, it said. “A simple query on the database can generate a report in a particular format which does not require any manual verification,” the petition said. Bhushan contended that the requirement of the KYC was mentioned in Section 4 of the electoral bonds scheme itself. Clause 7 of the scheme mandated that information furnished by the buyer should be disclosed when demanded by a competent court. Clause 12 (4) of the scheme, again, required electoral bonds remaining uncashed for 15 days would be deposited by the bank to the PM relief Fund. “Thus, it is inconceivable that the SBI did not record information readily available within its database,” the petition highlighted. The contempt petition said the SBI had enough technical know-how and manpower to have got the information by March 6. “The SBI has 2,60,000 employees, 22,500 worldwide branches administered by a headquarters, 17 local head offices, 101 zonal offices and 208 foreign offices in 36 countries. It is hard to believe that the SBI is not able to gather information which the SBI has itself recorded,” it said. Bhushan said the bank had not bothered to inform the court about the progress made so far. Besides, the affidavit supporting the bank’s application for an extension of time had neither been sworn by the Chairman nor the Managing Director of the SBI. The petition referred to a Right to Information response given by the SBI to retired Commodore Lokesh Batra in 2018, saying it had spent ₹60.43 lakh on IT system development, ₹89.72 lakh on operational costs and the net cost for floating of electoral bonds was ₹1.50 crore. “This implies that a well-functioning IT system is already in place with respect to management of sale and redemption of electoral bonds,” the petition pointed out. The RTI information also conveyed that in 30 phases of electoral bonds’ sale, only 19 out of 29 SBI-authorised branches sold electoral bonds and 14 SBI branches encashed them. “The data available as of January 2024 showed that only 25 political parties had opened their account and were eligible for encashing electoral bonds. Therefore, compiling this information should not be difficult as the system is already in place,” the petition argued. Supreme Court says no to ED’s plea against order not to disclose details of cases related to TMC leader’s wife The Supreme Court on March 7 refused to entertain a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a Calcutta High Court order, in which guidelines were issued to probe agencies for not disclosing to the public or media, before the filing of a charge sheet, the details of a probe related to any person, an accused, a suspect or witness insofar as Rujira Banerjee is concerned. The High Court order had come on a plea moved by Rujira Banerjee, the wife of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, in which she has alleged that Central probe agencies and the media are indulging in her character assassination and maligning her family by regularly publishing information regarding the probe being carried out by the agencies, including the ED, regarding alleged financial and other scams. A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who appeared in the matter on behalf of the ED, that since the agency’s plea is against an interim order of the High Court, the Supreme Court is not inclined to entertain it. Raju contended that it is virtually a final order as guidelines have been issued and ultimate relief has been granted to Banerjee by the interim order. He sought a direction for a stay of the guidelines. The Bench told Raju that the court would either dismiss the ED’s plea or the agency can withdraw it as it is against an interim order of the High Court. Raju then agreed to withdraw the plea, a request that was allowed by the court. On October 17 last year, the High Court issued a slew of guidelines and directed the probe agencies and media outlets to strictly adhere to those. It had said insofar as Banerjee is concerned, “the investigating agencies [in the present case, the ED] shall not disclose to the public or the media the circumstances, reasons and/or details of the interrogation, raids and search of any particular person, be he/she an accused, a suspect or a witness”. It had said investigating agencies in general, and the ED in particular, will not involve or be accompanied by mediapersons during any raid or interrogation, search-and-seizure procedure at any point of time and also not disclose prior information of such raids, interrogations, searches and seizures. The High Court had said the media, while reporting news items, will ensure that the information disseminated is objective, accurate and can be corroborated by concrete materials and sources. “The exact source may or may not be disclosed in the news item but the editors/board of editors/management of the particular media entity must be able to corroborate it by cogent material, if so required by any court of law or investigating agency or other body authorised to do so in law, including self-regulating authorities in respect of the media,” the High Court had said. It had further said even if media articles contain opinions and investigative write-ups or other literature in the form of entertainment, where particular persons are stigmatised or ridiculed or aspersions or insinuations are made in any manner, the names of the authors of such articles will have to be clearly disclosed with the articles. The High Court had said the media, during investigation and before the filing of a charge sheet, will not publish photographs of any person linking him or her to the investigation in news items reporting about the probe or any facet of it. The media was further directed not to publish or broadcast or telecast live video, audio or print footage of the process of search and seizure, raid or interrogation at any point of time. The court directed that these guidelines will be followed by the investigating agencies, in particular, the ED and all media houses till January 15, 2024 or until a further order, whichever is earlier. Banerjee had moved the High Court on the ground of right to privacy and alleged that fair trial is being affected. The High Court had observed that even if Banerjee is not an Indian citizen but only an OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) card holder, she is equally entitled to seek protection of her fundamental rights as any full-fledged citizen of India. Observing that by social and judicial evolution, certain additional rights have been read into the right to life and personal liberty as its essential and implicit components, the court said “right to privacy is one such right”. Abhishek Banerjee is the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee. Delhi court directs CM Arvind Kejriwal to physically appear on March 16 Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has been asked to present himself physically before the Rouse Avenue Court on March 16 following a fresh complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief for not complying with its summons in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. According to official sources, the latest ED complaint pertains to summonses No. 4 to 8, sent by the agency under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) between January 14 and March 4. The complaint against Kejriwal came two days after he skipped the eighth summons by the Central probe agency. On the same day, the AAP chief said that he is ready to appear before the agency through videoconferencing on any day after March 12. Kejriwal had appeared before the court, which had summoned him based on the ED’s complaint on February 3, through videoconferencing on February 17. He had expressed his inability to be personally present for the hearing due to the ongoing Budget Session. While summoning him last month, the court had noted that Kejriwal was “legally bound” to comply with the ED’s summons, but had “purportedly failed to do so”. Air India deboards female passenger at Delhi airport after argument with crew members A female business class passenger on an Air India flight to London was deboarded at the Delhi airport following an argument with cabin crew members this week. The incident happened on flight AI 161 on March 5 and the passenger involved was a senior corporate executive, according to sources in the know. In a statement, an Air India spokesperson said a passenger travelling in business class was off boarded on the advice of the captain following some argument with members of the crew before the scheduled pushback. “Following the off boarding, flight AI 161 departed after a delay of about an hour. The passenger who was off boarded was travelling for some compelling reasons and was accommodated on a subsequent flight following a written assurance,” the spokesperson said. Further details about the incident could not be immediately ascertained. As many as 894 passengers were denied boarding by Air India in January and around ₹98 lakh was spent by the airline on facilitation/compensation, as per information from aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation ((DGCA). In Brief The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on March 7 designated Mohammad Qasim Gujjar (32), a resident of Reasi in Jammu and Kashmir as an individual terrorist under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It said that Gujjar is a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a banned terrorist outfit. The Ministry said in a notification that the individual with an intention to wage war against the country is involved in terrorist activities which include “coordinating, supplying, identifying locations of drone for dropping of arms, ammunition, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and cash etc. and delivering and managing consignments from across the border.” Gujjar is the 57th person to be designated a terrorist. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 07 March 2024 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( It’s only by chance that I came out alive, says former DU professor G.N. Saibaba [It is only by chance that he could come out alive despite suffering the “brutal” jail life, said former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba after he was released from Nagpur Central Jail on Thursday.]( The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on March 5 set aside his life sentence in a Maoist links case, citing the failure of the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and deeming the sanction for prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as “null and void”, and a lack of application of mind by the State authority. Prof. Saibaba, who had been lodged in jail since 2017, after a trial court in Gadchiroli convicted him and others in the case, expressed concern about his health and the need for medical treatment upon his release. “My health is very bad. I can’t talk. I will have to first take medical treatment, and then only I will able to speak,” he said after coming out of the prison. A family member awaited Prof. Saibaba outside the jail premises. The professor said he would be visiting doctors soon. The 57-year-old wheelchair-bound English professor earlier refused to speak to the media about his eight years of incarceration. However, he said he changed his mind after requests from lawyers and media personnel. Describing his prison life as “very rigorous and brutal”, he said: “There was every chance that I would not have come out alive. I had no accessibility inside the prison.” He asked who would bring them back the 10 years of life spent in jail. “I couldn’t pull up, I could not move out of my wheelchair. I could not go to the toilet [on my own], and I could not take a bath. It’s a wonder that I came out of the prison alive today,” the former DU professor said, adding that the cases against him were a fabricated one. Not once but twice, the higher judiciary confirmed that the case was without facts, evidence and any legally viable matter, Prof. Saibaba said. A Division Bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki S.A. Menezes said that the report submitted by the independent authority recommending invocation of UAPA provisions in the case was “cryptic and a laconic half-page communication”. Soon, the Maharashtra government approached the Supreme Court seeking an urgent hearing after it failed to convince the High Court to stay the implementation of the judgment. Prof. Saibaba had previously served time from 2014 to 2016 before being granted bail in a case for his suspected links with the Maoist rebels. He was arrested by the police of Maharashtra and erstwhile combined Andhra Pradesh, and the Intelligence Bureau, while he was on his way home from Delhi University. The Bench also underscored that the seized pamphlets and electronic data from the suspects only indicated their sympathy towards the outlawed Maoist philosophy. Electoral bonds disclosure | Contempt plea moved against SBI for not disclosing details yet Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on March 7 said the [Supreme Court would consider listing a contempt petition against State Bank of India (SBI) Chairman Dinesh Kumar Khera]( for seeking time till June 30 to provide complete details of electoral bonds purchased since April 2019 to anonymously fund political parties. The contempt petition, filed jointly by petitioners Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Common Cause, said the Supreme Court, while striking down the electoral bonds scheme as a threat to electoral democracy, had directed the SBI to share details of the bonds sold to anonymous donors and political parties who had benefited from the transactions to the Election Commission of India by March 6, 2024. The Election Commission was ordered to publish the data obtained from the bank on its official website by March 13. However, the bank has put a spoke in the wheel by filing a nine-page application in the Supreme Court on March 4, just two days before the deadline. The bank said it needed time till June end to provide the Election Commission details about the bonds. The information and documents were scattered across its various branches and decoding them was tough and would take time. Making an oral mentioning in court on Thursday, advocates Prashant Bhushan, Cherul D’souza and Neha Rathi, for the contempt petitioners, urged the court to list the contempt plea along with the SBI’s application on Monday (March 11). “Once it (contempt petition) is verified by the Registry, your junior can send an email. I will pass orders,” Chief Justice Chandrachud told Bhushan. The contempt petition said the bank was deliberately trying to ensure that details of donors and the amounts contributed to political parties anonymously were not disclosed to the public before the Lok Sabha elections due in April-May. The petition said the bank’s stand was directly contradictory to an affidavit filed by the Union Government on March 15, 2019, which said information about the bonds were completely traceable and quickly available. The Centre’s affidavit had said that the electoral bonds scheme envisaged a transparent system of acquiring bonds with validated KYC and audit trail. The SBI would record KYC, PAN, details of identity and address in full of all the donors. “The SBI maintains a secret number-based record of donors who buy bonds and the political parties they donate to,” the contempt petition submitted. Each electoral bond had a unique number, it said. “A simple query on the database can generate a report in a particular format which does not require any manual verification,” the petition said. Bhushan contended that the requirement of the KYC was mentioned in Section 4 of the electoral bonds scheme itself. Clause 7 of the scheme mandated that information furnished by the buyer should be disclosed when demanded by a competent court. Clause 12 (4) of the scheme, again, required electoral bonds remaining uncashed for 15 days would be deposited by the bank to the PM relief Fund. “Thus, it is inconceivable that the SBI did not record information readily available within its database,” the petition highlighted. The contempt petition said the SBI had enough technical know-how and manpower to have got the information by March 6. “The SBI has 2,60,000 employees, 22,500 worldwide branches administered by a headquarters, 17 local head offices, 101 zonal offices and 208 foreign offices in 36 countries. It is hard to believe that the SBI is not able to gather information which the SBI has itself recorded,” it said. Bhushan said the bank had not bothered to inform the court about the progress made so far. Besides, the affidavit supporting the bank’s application for an extension of time had neither been sworn by the Chairman nor the Managing Director of the SBI. The petition referred to a Right to Information response given by the SBI to retired Commodore Lokesh Batra in 2018, saying it had spent ₹60.43 lakh on IT system development, ₹89.72 lakh on operational costs and the net cost for floating of electoral bonds was ₹1.50 crore. “This implies that a well-functioning IT system is already in place with respect to management of sale and redemption of electoral bonds,” the petition pointed out. The RTI information also conveyed that in 30 phases of electoral bonds’ sale, only 19 out of 29 SBI-authorised branches sold electoral bonds and 14 SBI branches encashed them. “The data available as of January 2024 showed that only 25 political parties had opened their account and were eligible for encashing electoral bonds. Therefore, compiling this information should not be difficult as the system is already in place,” the petition argued. Supreme Court says no to ED’s plea against order not to disclose details of cases related to TMC leader’s wife The [Supreme Court on March 7 refused to entertain a plea moved by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a Calcutta High Court order]( in which guidelines were issued to probe agencies for not disclosing to the public or media, before the filing of a charge sheet, the details of a probe related to any person, an accused, a suspect or witness insofar as Rujira Banerjee is concerned. The High Court order had come on a plea moved by Rujira Banerjee, the wife of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, in which she has alleged that Central probe agencies and the media are indulging in her character assassination and maligning her family by regularly publishing information regarding the probe being carried out by the agencies, including the ED, regarding alleged financial and other scams. A Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra told Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who appeared in the matter on behalf of the ED, that since the agency’s plea is against an interim order of the High Court, the Supreme Court is not inclined to entertain it. Raju contended that it is virtually a final order as guidelines have been issued and ultimate relief has been granted to Banerjee by the interim order. He sought a direction for a stay of the guidelines. The Bench told Raju that the court would either dismiss the ED’s plea or the agency can withdraw it as it is against an interim order of the High Court. Raju then agreed to withdraw the plea, a request that was allowed by the court. On October 17 last year, the High Court issued a slew of guidelines and directed the probe agencies and media outlets to strictly adhere to those. It had said insofar as Banerjee is concerned, “the investigating agencies [in the present case, the ED] shall not disclose to the public or the media the circumstances, reasons and/or details of the interrogation, raids and search of any particular person, be he/she an accused, a suspect or a witness”. It had said investigating agencies in general, and the ED in particular, will not involve or be accompanied by mediapersons during any raid or interrogation, search-and-seizure procedure at any point of time and also not disclose prior information of such raids, interrogations, searches and seizures. The High Court had said the media, while reporting news items, will ensure that the information disseminated is objective, accurate and can be corroborated by concrete materials and sources. “The exact source may or may not be disclosed in the news item but the editors/board of editors/management of the particular media entity must be able to corroborate it by cogent material, if so required by any court of law or investigating agency or other body authorised to do so in law, including self-regulating authorities in respect of the media,” the High Court had said. It had further said even if media articles contain opinions and investigative write-ups or other literature in the form of entertainment, where particular persons are stigmatised or ridiculed or aspersions or insinuations are made in any manner, the names of the authors of such articles will have to be clearly disclosed with the articles. The High Court had said the media, during investigation and before the filing of a charge sheet, will not publish photographs of any person linking him or her to the investigation in news items reporting about the probe or any facet of it. The media was further directed not to publish or broadcast or telecast live video, audio or print footage of the process of search and seizure, raid or interrogation at any point of time. The court directed that these guidelines will be followed by the investigating agencies, in particular, the ED and all media houses till January 15, 2024 or until a further order, whichever is earlier. Banerjee had moved the High Court on the ground of right to privacy and alleged that fair trial is being affected. The High Court had observed that even if Banerjee is not an Indian citizen but only an OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) card holder, she is equally entitled to seek protection of her fundamental rights as any full-fledged citizen of India. Observing that by social and judicial evolution, certain additional rights have been read into the right to life and personal liberty as its essential and implicit components, the court said “right to privacy is one such right”. Abhishek Banerjee is the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee. Delhi court directs CM Arvind Kejriwal to physically appear on March 16 Delhi Chief Minister [Arvind Kejriwal has been asked to present himself physically before the Rouse Avenue Court on March 16]( following a fresh complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief for not complying with its summons in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. According to official sources, the latest ED complaint pertains to summonses No. 4 to 8, sent by the agency under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) between January 14 and March 4. The complaint against Kejriwal came two days after he skipped the eighth summons by the Central probe agency. On the same day, the AAP chief said that he is ready to appear before the agency through videoconferencing on any day after March 12. Kejriwal had appeared before the court, which had summoned him based on the ED’s complaint on February 3, through videoconferencing on February 17. He had expressed his inability to be personally present for the hearing due to the ongoing Budget Session. While summoning him last month, the court had noted that Kejriwal was “legally bound” to comply with the ED’s summons, but had “purportedly failed to do so”. Air India deboards female passenger at Delhi airport after argument with crew members [A female business class passenger on an Air India flight to London was deboarded at the Delhi airport following an argument with cabin crew members this week.]( The incident happened on flight AI 161 on March 5 and the passenger involved was a senior corporate executive, according to sources in the know. In a statement, an Air India spokesperson said a passenger travelling in business class was off boarded on the advice of the captain following some argument with members of the crew before the scheduled pushback. “Following the off boarding, flight AI 161 departed after a delay of about an hour. The passenger who was off boarded was travelling for some compelling reasons and was accommodated on a subsequent flight following a written assurance,” the spokesperson said. Further details about the incident could not be immediately ascertained. As many as 894 passengers were denied boarding by Air India in January and around ₹98 lakh was spent by the airline on facilitation/compensation, as per information from aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation ((DGCA). In Brief The [Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on March 7 designated Mohammad Qasim Gujjar (32), a resident of Reasi in Jammu and Kashmir as an individual terrorist]( under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It said that Gujjar is a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a banned terrorist outfit. The Ministry said in a notification that the individual with an intention to wage war against the country is involved in terrorist activities which include “coordinating, supplying, identifying locations of drone for dropping of arms, ammunition, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and cash etc. and delivering and managing consignments from across the border.” Gujjar is the 57th person to be designated a terrorist. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [Sign up for free]( Today’s Top Picks [[How will the change in surrogacy rules impact prospective parents? | In Focus podcast] How will the change in surrogacy rules impact prospective parents? | In Focus podcast]( [[Watch | Two years of Russia-Ukraine war: How Russia and the world are changing] Watch | Two years of Russia-Ukraine war: How Russia and the world are changing]( [[In deep waters The troubled waters of Kerala’s fishing industry Harbouring a difficult catch] In deep waters The troubled waters of Kerala’s fishing industry Harbouring a difficult catch]( [[Why cooling earth by reflecting sunlight back isn’t a bright idea] Why cooling earth by reflecting sunlight back isn’t a bright idea]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [click here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](