Ind. J . o Mod. Res. and Re . PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL Volume 3 Issue 9 [Sep] 2025
104
© 2025 Anshika Gup a, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh. This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY NC ND).h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Indian Jou nal o
Mode n Resea ch and Re iews
This Jou nal is a membe o he ‘Commi ee on Publica ion E hics’
Online ISSN:2584-184X
REVIEW PAPER
In e na ional S anda ds Vs. Indian P ac ice: A Compa a i e S udy
o P isone s' Vo ing Righ s
Anshika Gup a 1*, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh 2
1 Resea ch Schola , Tee hanke Maha ee College o Law & Legal S udies, Tee hanke Maha ee Uni e si y,
U a P adesh, India
2 P incipal, Tee hanke Maha ee College o Law & Legal S udies, Tee hanke Maha ee Uni e si y,
U a P adesh, India
Co esponding Au ho : *Anshika Gup a DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5281/zenodo.17278751
2
ABSTRACT
Manusc ip In o.
This pape examines in e na ional human- igh s s anda ds on he igh o o e and compa es hem wi h
Indian s a u o y and judicial p ac ice. In e na ional ins umen s and expe bodies ( he In e na ional
Co enan on Ci il and Poli ical Righ s (ICCPR) and Human Righ s Commi ee guidance, he Uni ed
Na ions S anda d Minimum Rules o he T ea men o P isone s (Nelson Mandela Rules), and
egional ju isp udence such as he Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s’ ulings) se s ong no ms
a o ing uni e sal su age and equi e any es ic ion o be p o ided by law, necessa y and
p opo iona e. India’s law — chie ly Sec ion 62(5) o he Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951 —
e ec i ely imposes a blanke ban on o ing by pe sons con ined in p ison on he da e o an elec ion;
Indian cou s ha e upheld his s a u o y ule. The pape a gues ha India’s blanke exclusion aises
se ious conce ns unde in e na ional s anda ds and ecommends ealis ic, igh s-based e o ms (pilo
special polling, absen ee o ing o eligible p isone s, including unde ials, clea e ules
dis inguishing p e- ial de ainees om con ic ed p isone s, and be e da a collec ion).
✓ ISSN No: 2584- 184X
✓ Recei ed: 12-07-2025
✓ Accep ed: 24-08-2025
✓ Published: 30-09-2025
✓ MRR:3(9):2025;104-107
✓ ©2025, All Righ s Rese ed.
✓ Pee Re iew P ocess: Yes
✓ Plagia ism Checked: Yes
How To Ci e his A icle
Gup a A, Singh SK. In e na ional
s anda ds s. Indian p ac ice: a
compa a i e s udy o p isone s'
o ing igh s. Ind J Mod Res Re .
2025;3(9):104-107.
KEYWORDS: P isone s’ o ing igh s; uni e sal su age; ICCPR A icle 25; Gene al Commen 25; Rep esen a ion o he People Ac
1951; Sec ion 62(5); Anukul Chand a P adhan; Hi s UK; Nelson Mandela Rules; Venice Commission.
1. INTRODUCTION
The igh o o e is cen al o democ a ic go e nance and is
p o ec ed by mul iple in e na ional ins umen s. S a es, howe e ,
di e in whe he and how hey limi he elec o al anchise o
pe sons dep i ed o libe y. This di e gence aises he ques ion
o whe he domes ic exclusions, especially blanke bans, comply
wi h in e na ional human- igh s obliga ions. This pape
compa es in e na ional legal s anda ds and guidance wi h Indian
s a u o y p ac ice and judicial in e p e a ions o assess
compliance and o p opose e o ms consis en wi h igh s and
p ac icabili y.
2. METHODOLOGY
The s udy is doc inal and compa a i e. I uses (a) p ima y
in e na ional ins umen s ( ea ies, UN guidance), (b) egional
human- igh s case law (Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s), (c)
o icial UN and expe -body ins umen s (Nelson Mandela
Rules, Venice Commission opinions), and (d) Indian s a u o y
law and key Sup eme Cou decisions. Seconda y sou ces
include epo s om majo ci il-socie y o ganiza ions and
academic commen a y. Emphasis is on legal ex s, ea y-body
guidance, and leading ju isp udence.
Ind. J . o Mod. Res. and Re . PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL Volume 3 Issue 9 [Sep] 2025
105
© 2025 Anshika Gup a, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh. This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY NC ND).h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
3. In e na ional S anda ds and Human Righ s Guidance
3.1 ICCPR and The Righ o Poli ical Pa icipa ion
A icle 25 o he In e na ional Co enan on Ci il and Poli ical
Righ s gua an ees he igh o e e y ci izen o ake pa in public
a ai s, o e and be elec ed, and o ha e access o public se ice,
subjec o na ional law quali ica ions. The Human Righ s
Commi ee’s Gene al Commen No. 25 elabo a es ha
es ic ions on A icle 25 igh s mus be p o ided by law and
mus no be applied in a manne ha would nulli y he igh s
gua an eed by he Co enan . Blanke o a bi a y es ic ions a e
inconsis en wi h he Co enan ’s objec and pu pose.
3.2 UN S anda d Minimum Rules (Nelson Mandela Rules)
And P isone s’ Righ s
The Nelson Mandela Rules emphasize he p ese a ion o
p isone s’ undamen al human igh s consis en wi h hei s a us
as pe sons. While he Rules do no ame a speci ic a icle
saying “p isone s shall o e,” hey encou age ac ions ha
p ese e p isone s’ con ac wi h he ou side wo ld and ci ic li e;
expe commen a y eads hese Rules as suppo i e o p ac ical
measu es o enable o ing whe e easible.
3.3 Regional Ju isp udence — Eu opean Cou o Human
Righ s
The Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s (EC HR) has ea ed
p isone disen anchisemen as subjec o sc u iny unde he
Con en ion (A icle 3 o P o ocol No. 1, igh o ee elec ions).
In Hi s . Uni ed Kingdom (No. 2) (2005), he G and Chambe
held ha a blanke and au oma ic p ohibi ion on o ing o all
de ained con ic ed p isone s was disp opo iona e and he e o e
incompa ible wi h he Con en ion’s gua an ees; he EC HR
a i med ha es ic ions mus be jus i ied and p opo iona e.
The decision does no equi e uni e sal en anchisemen o all
p isone s, bu i ejec s indisc imina e, unquali ied bans.
3.4 Ad iso y Opinion and Expe Guidance — Venice
Commission, Human Righ s Bodies
The Council o Eu ope’s Venice Commission and o he
in e na ional expe bodies ha e ecommended abolishing
blanke bans and adop ing na owe , p opo iona e es ic ions, i
any. The Venice Commission explici ly ad ised ha p isone s
should be allowed o o e excep whe e a speci ic, jus i ied
es ic ion is imposed and when p ison condi ions make o ing
physically impossible; e en hen, au ho i ies should pu sue
al e na i es (absen ee ballo s, special polling s a ions, assis ed
o ing).
3.5 Summa y o In e na ional S anda d
Summing up, in e na ional ins umen s and leading
ju isp udence a ou b oad p o ec ion o he anchise.
Res ic ions mus be g ounded in law, pu sue a legi ima e aim,
and sa is y necessi y and p opo ionali y. Blanke exclusions o
all pe sons dep i ed o libe y on he da e o an elec ion a e
s ongly dis a ou ed by in e na ional human- igh s au ho i ies.
4. INDIAN STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL PRACTICE
4.1 S a u o y Rule — Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951
Sec ion 62(5) o he Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951
p o ides ha “No pe son shall o e a any elec ion i he is
con ined in a p ison, whe he unde a sen ence o imp isonmen
o anspo a ion o o he wise,” e ec i ely c ea ing a da e-o -
poll exclusion o any pe son in law ul cus ody. This s a u o y
p o ision is absolu e in i s e ms and applies o bo h con ic ed
p isone s and pe sons in cus ody (including, in p ac ice, many
unde ials).
4.2 Key Judicial Au ho i y — Anukul Chand a P adhan .
Union o India
The cons i u ional alidi y o Sec ion 62(5) has been challenged.
In Anukul Chand a P adhan . Union o India (1997), he
Sup eme Cou o India add essed challenges o he s a u o y
p o ision and sus ained he legisla i e scheme. The Cou
accep ed se e al a ionales: logis ical and secu i y di icul ies in
conduc ing polling inside p isons, he objec i e o p e en ing
“c iminaliza ion” o poli ics, and he legisla i e compe ence o
egula e anchise subjec o easonable classi ica ion. Indian
ju isp udence hus ea s he s a u o y exclusion as pe missible
unde domes ic cons i u ional es s.
4.3 P ac ical E ec and C i ique
In p ac ice, he e ec is ha many unde ial p isone s, who ha e
no been inally con ic ed and who may ha e spen long p e- ial
pe iods in cus ody, a e disen anchised a he ime o elec ions.
Ci il-socie y commen a o s and some academics a gue ha his
p ac ice is a bi a y and disp opo iona e, unde mines he
p esump ion o innocence, and con lic s wi h in e na ional
s anda ds ha equi e p opo ionali y in es ic ions. The e ha e
been calls o absen ee o ing op ions, mobile polling, o
selec i e en anchisemen o unde ials and con ic ed p isone s
se ing sho sen ences.
5. Compa a i e Analysis: In e na ional S anda ds Vs Indian
P ac ice
5.1 Legal Compa ibili y
In e na ional s anda ds (ICCPR A icle 25 and Gene al
Commen 25, EC HR ju isp udence, and Venice Commission
guidance) equi e ha any es ic ion on he anchise mus be
law ul, pu sue a legi ima e aim, and be p opo iona e. India’s
Sec ion 62(5), as in e p e ed by he Sup eme Cou , is “law ul”
in he domes ic sense, bu i s blanke na u e aises
p opo ionali y conce ns unde he in e na ional s anda ds
elabo a ed abo e. The co e ension: Indian law e ec s an ac oss-
he-boa d exclusion ha in e na ional au ho i ies ha e c i icized
when simila ly amed in Eu opean ju isdic ions.
5.2 T ea men o Unde ials
In e na ional p inciples s ess ha p e- ial de ainees e ain he
p esump ion o innocence and should no be disen anchised as a
puni i e measu e. India’s blanke da e-o -poll exclusion does no
dis inguish be ween con ic ed p isone s and unde ials;
consequen ly, many who a e legally innocen o no ye
Ind. J . o Mod. Res. and Re . PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL Volume 3 Issue 9 [Sep] 2025
106
© 2025 Anshika Gup a, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh. This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY NC ND).h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
con ic ed lose he igh o pa icipa e in elec ions — a
signi ican di e gence om ecommended in e na ional p ac ice.
5.3 P opo ionali y and Ope a ional Al e na i es
The in e na ional ju isp udence encou ages s a es o adop less
in usi e, easible al e na i es (absen ee o ing, p oxy o ing,
special polling s a ions). India’s s a ed easons o he exclusion
— adminis a i e di icul y and secu i y — a e legi ima e on
hei ace; howe e , in e na ional bodies equi e e idence ha
less es ic i e measu es we e conside ed and shown o be
in easible. Se e al s a es and coun ies ha e demons a ed ha
special measu es can wo k (e.g., some Eu opean coun ies
pe mi polling in p isons o absen ee o ing o p isone s),
signaling ha blanke exclusion is no he only p ac ical op ion.
India has limi ed pilo s o sys ema ic a angemen s allowing
inca ce a ed pe sons o o e, making i s blanke policy appea
disp opo iona e agains he in e na ional ya ds ick.
5.4: Compa a i e Table: In e na ional S anda ds s. Indian P ac ice
C i e ia / Issue
In e na ional S anda ds (ICCPR, EC HR,
Venice Commission, e c.)
Indian P ac ice (Sec ion 62(5), Sup eme
Cou Decisions)
Compa a i e Rema ks
1. Legal Basis
Any es ic ion mus be p o ided by law, se e a
legi ima e aim, and be necessa y and
p opo iona e.
Res ic ion is legally g ounded (Rep esen a ion
o he People Ac , 1951, Sec. 62(5)) bu applies
uni o mly o all p isone s.
India mee s he legali y equi emen
bu ails he p opo ionali y es .
2. P opo ionali y
Res ic ions should be na ow and ailo ed, limi ed
o se ious o ences o indi idual ci cums ances
(e.g., Hi s UK).
A blanke ban applies o all p isone s,
ega dless o he se e i y o hei o ence o
sen ence.
India’s app oach is o e b oad and
inconsis en wi h p opo ionali y
p inciples.
3. T ea men o
Unde ials
P e- ial de ainees e ain he p esump ion o
innocence and should no be disen anchised.
No dis inc ion — unde ials a e also
disen anchised despi e no being con ic ed.
This iola es he p esump ion o
innocence and di e ges sha ply om
in e na ional no ms.
4. Al e na i e
Vo ing Mechanisms
Special polling s a ions, pos al ballo s, o p oxy
o ing a e ecommended o enable p isone s’
pa icipa ion.
No such mechanisms exis ; logis ical and
secu i y issues a e ci ed as jus i ica ion o o al
exclusion.
India has no explo ed o implemen ed
less es ic i e al e na i es.
5. Human Righ s
App oach
Nelson Mandela Rules emphasize ha p isone s
emain pa o ci ic socie y and hei igh s should
be p ese ed.
Vo ing igh s a e emo ed en i ely, excluding
p isone s om he democ a ic p ocess.
India’s policy is no aligned wi h a
human igh s–based app oach.
6. Social Impac
B oade en anchisemen ensu es pa icipa ion o
ma ginalized g oups and s eng hens democ acy.
Blanke disen anchisemen u he silences
al eady disad an aged g oups.
India’s p ac ice exace ba es
democ a ic exclusion.
7. Global T end
Mos democ a ic na ions impose limi ed o no
es ic ions (e.g., Canada, No way, Sou h A ica).
India is among he coun ies wi h a o al ban on
p isone o ing.
India is ou o s ep wi h global
democ a ic ends and s anda ds.
COMPARATIVE CONCLUSION
The abo e compa ison demons a es ha India’s cu en legal
amewo k — pa icula ly Sec ion 62(5) o he Rep esen a ion o
he People Ac , 1951 — di e ges signi ican ly om in e na ional
human- igh s s anda ds. While in e na ional ins umen s
emphasize legali y, legi ima e pu pose, p opo ionali y, and
minimal es ic ions, Indian law en o ce s impose a blanke ,
undi e en ia ed ban on all p isone s, including hose who a e
unde ial and p esumed innocen .
This app oach aises se ious conce ns ega ding democ a ic
inclusion, he ule o law, and compliance wi h in e na ional
commi men s. To b idge his gap, India mus conside p ac ical
e o ms such as in oducing al e na i e o ing mechanisms,
dis inguishing be ween unde ials and con ic ed p isone s, and
ailo ing disen anchisemen only o he mos se ious cases —
s eps ha would be e align domes ic p ac ice wi h global no ms
and democ a ic alues.
6. HUMAN-RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC
IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Exclusion o Ma ginalized Voices
P ison popula ions disp opo iona ely comp ise socio-
economically disad an aged g oups. Blanke
disen anchisemen , he e o e, p oduces a sys emic exclusion o
Al eady ma ginalized communi ies om ci ic pa icipa ion,
heigh ening democ a ic de ici , and po en ially weakening
incen i es o penal e o m esponsi e o a ec ed communi ies.
This e ec is emphasized in compa a i e epo s documen ing
la ge numbe s o disen anchised people in ju isdic ions wi h
expansi e bans.
6.2 P esump ion o Innocence and Rule o Law
Disen anchising unde ials unde mines he p esump ion o
innocence — a co ne s one o c iminal jus ice. In e na ional
human- igh s guidance emphasises ha es ic ions should no
ope a e as addi ional puni i e measu es agains pe sons no ye
con ic ed. India’s p ac ice places many p e- ial de ainees
ou side he poli ical communi y o he du a ion o cus ody,
some imes o long pe iods, aising signi ican ule-o -law
conce ns.
6.3 Ope a ional Conce ns s. Righ s P o ec ion
Au ho i ies ci e logis ical and secu i y di icul ies o no
enabling o ing inside p isons. These conce ns a e eal, bu
in e na ional guidance and p ac ices om o he ju isdic ions
indica e wo kable solu ions (ad ance o ing, mobile polling,
supe ised absen ee o ing), so he genuine ope a ional
di icul y mus be weighed agains igh s p o ec ion and es ed
ia pilo p og ams a he han se ing as pe manen jus i ica ion
o a blanke ban.
Ind. J . o Mod. Res. and Re . PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL Volume 3 Issue 9 [Sep] 2025
107
© 2025 Anshika Gup a, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh. This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY NC ND).h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
To align Indian p ac ice mo e closely wi h in e na ional
s anda ds while ecognizing adminis a i e eali ies, he
ollowing e o ms a e p oposed:
1. Dis inguish Unde ials om Con ic ed P isone s:
Amend o ein e p e Sec ion 62(5) o allow pe sons no ye
con ic ed (Unde ial De ainees) o o e, p ese ing he
p esump ion o innocence. Pilo absen ee o ing o p oxy
o ing o unde ials in majo dis ic s.
2. Pilo Special Polling and Absen ee Vo ing: Conduc ime-
limi ed pilo p ojec s (selec s a es/dis ic s) o es secu e
special polling s a ions inside p isons and absen ee o ing
p ocedu es (pos al ballo s o supe ised p oxies) and
e alua e easibili y and u nou . Lessons om o he
ju isdic ions should be adap ed, no di ec ly ansplan ed.
3. P opo ionali y Re iew and Legisla i e Cla i ica ion:
Pa liamen should e isi he p o ision o equi e ha any
disen anchisemen be na owly ailo ed ( o ins ance,
limi ed o pa icula se ious con ic ions and subjec o
judicial e iew), e lec ing ICCPR p opo ionali y
equi emen s.
4. Da a Collec ion and T anspa ency: Elec ion au ho i ies
should collec and publish disagg ega ed da a on he numbe
o pe sons disen anchised and hei cus odial s a us
(con ic ed e sus unde ial) o in o m policy and
compliance assessmen s.
5. Capaci y Building and Vo e Educa ion: In es in
aining elec ion o ice s and p ison au ho i ies on
p ocedu es o enabling p isone o ing and on p o ec ing
he sec ecy and in eg i y o ballo s.
8. CONCLUSION
In e na ional human- igh s law s ongly p o ec s he igh o
poli ical pa icipa ion and equi es ha any es ic ion be law ul,
necessa y, and p opo iona e. India’s cu en s a u o y ule
(Sec ion 62(5) RPA 1951), as upheld in domes ic ju isp udence,
ins i u es a blanke ban o pe sons con ined in p ison on he da e
o an elec ion — a p ac ice ha con lic s in signi ican espec s
wi h in e na ional s anda ds and wi h he p esump ion o
innocence o unde ials. A p agma ic, igh s- espec ing e o m
agenda — dis inguishing unde ials, pilo ing secu e o ing
me hods inside p isons, s eng hening anspa ency, and
legisla ing na owly ailo ed disen anchisemen whe e uly
necessa y — would be e econcile India’s elec o al law wi h
in e na ional commi men s while add essing genuine ope a ional
conce ns.
REFERENCES
1. Uni ed Na ions. In e na ional Co enan on Ci il and Poli ical
Righ s. A . 25. New Yo k: UN; 1966.
2. UN Human Righ s Commi ee. Gene al Commen No. 25: The
igh o pa icipa e in public a ai s, o ing igh s, and equal
access o public se ice. CCPR/C/21/Re .1/Add.7. Gene a:
UN; 1996.
3. Uni ed Na ions. S anda d Minimum Rules o he T ea men o
P isone s ( he Nelson Mandela Rules). New Yo k: UN; 2015.
4. Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s. Hi s Uni ed Kingdom
(No. 2), App No. 74025/01, G and Chambe Judgmen .
S asbou g: EC HR; 2005.
5. Council o Eu ope, Venice Commission. Aboli ion o
es ic ions on he igh o o e. S asbou g: CoE; [yea
unknown].
6. Go e nmen o India. Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951.
Sec. 62(5). New Delhi: Gaze e o India; 1951.
7. Sup eme Cou o India. Anukul Chand a P adhan Union o
India. AIR 1997 SC 2814. New Delhi: SCI; 1997.
8. House o Commons Lib a y. P isone s’ o ing igh s. Resea ch
b ie ing. London: UK Pa liamen ; [yea unknown].
9. The Sen encing P ojec . Ou o s ep: US policy on o ing igh s
in a global pe spec i e. Washing on, DC: The Sen encing
P ojec ; [yea unknown].
10. Amnes y In e na ional. Coun y summa ies and de en ion igh s
epo s: India. London: Amnes y; [yea unknown].
11. [Au ho unknown]. Digni y in p isone s’ igh o o e. [Place
unknown]: [Publishe unknown]; [yea unknown].
12. Go e nmen o India. Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951.
Full ex . New Delhi: IndiaCode, O icial Gaze e; 1951.
13. IndianKanoon. Rep esen a ion o he People Ac , 1951: Sec.
62(5) anno a ions. [In e ne ]. [ci ed yea unknown]. A ailable
om: h ps://indiankanoon.o g
14. Eu opean Cou o Human Righ s. Hi s Uni ed Kingdom
(No. 2) case summa y. HUDOC da abase. [In e ne ].
S asbou g: EC HR; 2005.
15. Reu e s. US li iga ion and de elopmen s on elony
disen anchisemen . [In e ne ]. London: Reu e s; [yea
unknown].
16. AP News. S a e e o ms on he es o a ion o o ing igh s in
he US. [In e ne ]. New Yo k: AP; [yea unknown].
17. Venice Commission. Repo on he p ohibi ion o p isone s’
o ing. S asbou g: Council o Eu ope; [yea unknown].
18. Uni ed Kingdom. Rep esen a ion o he People Ac and ela ed
measu es. London: UK Go e nmen ; [yea unknown].
19. The Ma shall P ojec . In jus wo s a es, all p isone s can o e:
he e’s why ew do. New Yo k: The Ma shall P ojec ; [yea
unknown].
20. The Sen encing P ojec . Locked ou 2024: Fou million denied
o ing igh s. Washing on, DC: The Sen encing P ojec ; 2024.
21. Ballo pedia. S a e es o a ion measu es and compa a i e maps.
[In e ne ]. Ballo pedia; [yea unknown].
22. Na ional Reen y Resou ce Cen e . S a e-by-s a e map: elony
o ing igh s. Washing on, DC: NRRC; 2024–2025.
23. Ju isCen e. Policy pape s on p isone s’ en anchisemen in
India, 2023–2024. [Place unknown]: Ju isCen e; 2024.
24. The Sen encing P ojec . Vo ing om p ison: lessons om
Maine and Ve mon . Washing on, DC: The Sen encing P ojec ;
[yea unknown].
25. [Au ho unknown]. A compa a i e analysis o p isone s’
disen anchisemen . Mig a ion Le . [yea
unknown];[ olume(issue)]:[pages].
C ea i e Commons (CC) License
This a icle is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY 4.0) license.
This license pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in
any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed.
Ind. J . o Mod. Res. and Re . PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL Volume 3 Issue 9 [Sep] 2025
108
© 2025 Anshika Gup a, P o . D . Sushil Kuma Singh. This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY NC ND).h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
