Tag: #obc

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
3.	Impact on Education and Employment
4.	Disagreements and Criticisms
5.	Transformation of the Socioeconomic System
6.	Implications for the Future and Problems

Introduction to the 105th Amendment Act

The Indian Constitution’s 105th Amendment Act, officially known as the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2019¹, is a crucial legislative measure that introduced important changes in the field of reservations in India. This amendment passed on January 12, 2019, and adopted on August 5, 2019, marked a turning point in India’s lengthy history of affirmative action legislation.

The major goal of the 105th Amendment Act was to expand reservations to economically disadvantaged sectors (EWS) of the general population. It intended to provide equitable opportunity for individuals who were economically disadvantaged while not belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). This modification sought to address the long-standing complaint that reservation systems disproportionately benefited specific castes, potentially leaving economically disadvantaged individuals out of the general category.

The inclusion of Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution was one of the significant measures established by this amendment. These provisions allowed the government to give up to 10% reservation in educational institutions and public employment for the EWS², allowing them to enter the intensely competitive Indian education and job sectors.

The passage of the 105th Amendment Act was a watershed point in India’s quest for social justice and equality. It triggered heated debates and discussions on what constitutes “economic backwardness” and the practical implications of such reservations. It generated both support and criticism, as with every big constitutional amendment, prompting a full assessment of India’s complicated confluence of caste, class, and affirmative action.

Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota policy was implemented in India through the 105th Amendment Act, which signified a substantial break from the traditional framework of caste-based reservations. This programme, which went into force in 2019, intends to reduce economic disparities and provide chances to those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds in general. 

Individuals in the EWS category are entitled to up to 10% of seats in educational institutions and government positions under the EWS reservation policy. Individuals or families must meet certain income and wealth requirements to qualify for EWS. The income restriction often takes into account factors such as family income, property, and agricultural holdings. By giving reservation benefits to people who are struggling financially but do not belong to any reserved category, this tactic aims to level the playing field.

One of its main benefits is that the EWS reservation policy does not conflict with currently held reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Other Backward Classes (OBC). Instead, it adds a new category within the broader category for economically disadvantaged people.

The implementation of EWS reservations has received both praise and criticism. Proponents say that it tackles the issue of economic inequality, while detractors worry about the potential impact on current quotas and call the criteria of economic backwardness into doubt.

Impact on Education and Employment

The 105th Amendment Act’s inclusion of Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) reservations in education and employment has had a significant impact on access to these critical fields. This programme attempted to increase chances for economically disadvantaged individuals in the general category by allocating up to 10% of seats and posts in educational institutions and public jobs to EWS candidates.

The impact has been substantial in the field of education. EWS reservations have increased access to quality education for pupils who would not otherwise have had such possibilities. This change has enhanced competition and diversity in classroom settings, resulting in a more inclusive educational experience. However, it has raised concerns about the infrastructure and resources needed to accommodate the increasing student intake, which might put institutions under strain.

In terms of employment, EWS reservations have opened up new opportunities for job seekers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. EWS candidates now have more access to government career possibilities in particular. This has the ability to generate greater social inclusion by creating a more varied and representative workforce. However, difficulties occur when attempting to balance the demands of employment quotas with the necessity for merit-based selections.

The impact of EWS reservations on education and employment is a source of contention, with continuous debates over implementation, effectiveness, and the difficult balance between eliminating economic disparities and maintaining the quality and efficiency of these institutions.

Disagreements and Criticisms

Since its beginnings, the 105th Amendment Act, which introduced reservations for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), has been the subject of various disputes and critiques. While supporters say that it reduces economic inequality, detractors have legitimate concerns about its possible consequences.

One major point of contention is the notion of “economic backwardness” used to determine eligibility for EWS reservations. According to critics, the income and asset limitations are arbitrary and do not reflect the genuine amount of economic need. This has raised concerns about whether qualified candidates are being denied, despite the fact that persons who are not genuinely economically disadvantaged may profit from the approach.

Another issue is that the existing reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) may be diluted. Some are concerned that the 10% EWS reserve may limit possibilities for historically marginalised communities, undercutting the basic purpose of affirmative action policies.

Furthermore, there are issues regarding the viability of efficiently enforcing EWS reservations, particularly in highly competitive industries like as education and public jobs. Critics say that the sudden surge of EWS applicants will strain resources and infrastructure, lowering overall educational and administrative quality.

Critics of the 105th Amendment Act also criticise the timing and intentions for its passage, implying that it was motivated by political considerations rather than a genuine desire to redress economic inequality.

These debates and criticisms underscore the complexities of EWS reservations, as well as the necessity for continual examination and revision to ensure they achieve their intended goals without negatively impacting other marginalised groups.

Transformation of the Socioeconomic System

The 105th Amendment Act’s implementation of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota policy has the potential to cause enormous socioeconomic upheavals in India. While the entire scope of these changes will become obvious over time, a number of potential consequences can be predicted.

1. Increased Educational Access: EWS reservations give economically disadvantaged people easier access to quality education. As a result, a larger pool of qualified and educated workers from varied origins may emerge, potentially contributing to economic growth and development.
2. Expanded Employment Opportunities: The programme intends to solve unemployment and underemployment among economically disadvantaged groups by reserving government job openings for EWS candidates. This can result in a higher standard of living for EWS households and a decrease in poverty rates.
3. Reduced Income disparity: If implemented correctly, the EWS reservation policy may contribute to lowering income disparity by providing chances to individuals who were previously marginalised owing to economic constraints. EWS reservations can act as a social mobility mechanism, allowing individuals to break the cycle of poverty and access better prospects for themselves and their children.³
4. Diverse Representation: The policy may result in more diverse representation in educational institutions and government bodies in the long run, encouraging a sense of inclusion and equity.
5. Problems and Adjustments: It is crucial to emphasise that the policy offers problems, such as ensuring that infrastructure and resources can meet the increased demand for education and employment possibilities.⁴

The socioeconomic transition brought about by the 105th Amendment Act has a lot of potential, but it also needs to be carefully monitored, evaluated, and adjusted if it is to reduce economic inequities while retaining the effectiveness of institutions and services.

Implications for the Future and Problems

The introduction of EWS reservations in India via the 105th Amendment Act has far-reaching ramifications for the future, as well as a number of obstacles that must be properly addressed.

Future Possibilities:

1. Socioeconomic inclusiveness: EWS reservations have the potential to improve socioeconomic inclusiveness. The strategy attempts to eliminate income disparity and create a more balanced society by offering chances to economically disadvantaged individuals.
2. Diversity in Education and Employment: By including EWS candidates, educational institutions and the workforce can become more diverse. This variety can broaden viewpoints and produce a more welcoming workplace.⁵

Future Obstacles:

1. Effective Implementation: It is a huge problem to ensure that the benefits of EWS reservations reach the intended beneficiaries. Transparent methods and proper implementation mechanisms are critical.
2. Infrastructure and Resources: The unexpected increase in the number of EWS students and job seekers may put educational institutions and government organisations under strain. To handle this transition, adequate infrastructure and resources must be allocated.
3. Balancing current Quotas: Finding the correct balance between EWS reservations and current quotas for SC, ST, and OBC populations is a major difficulty. The strategy should not unintentionally limit chances for historically marginalised communities.
4. Political Manipulation: There is a concern that reserve policies will be manipulated for political advantage. These policies must be safeguarded against abuse.
5. Continuous Evaluation: To assess the long-term impact of EWS reservations, continuous evaluation and policy revisions may be required to guarantee the programme accomplishes its socioeconomic aims.⁶

To summarise, the future of EWS reservations in India is dependent on their efficient implementation, overcoming hurdles, and remaining focused on the larger goal of eliminating economic disparity and promoting a more inclusive society.

---

Endnotes:

1.  The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2019. “Gazette of India”
2.  The Times of India, “10% quota for poorer sections in general category challenged in Supreme Court,” January 10, 2019.
3. Kumar, S. (2019). “Impact of Reservation Policy in India: A Socio-Economic Analysis.” International Journal of Recent Research Aspects, 6(1), 1-10.
4. Dreze, J., & Khera, R. (2017). “Understanding Leakages in the Public Distribution System.” Economic and Political Weekly, 52(28), 49-55.
5. Kundu, T., & Kanbur, R. (2019). “Economics and Politics of Reservation in India: An Overview of Emerging Issues.” Cornell University ILR School, Ithaca, New York.
6. Thorat, S., & Attewell, P. (2007). “The Legacy of Social Exclusion: A Correspondence Study of Job Discrimination in India.” Economic and Political Weekly, 42(41), 4141-4145.

This article is authored by Srishti Singh, a pass-out student at O P Jindal Global University, Sonipat

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, was a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary. The case, heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of reservation in government jobs and education for the socially and economically backward classes of Indian society, also known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The judgment, in this case, has had far-reaching implications for Indian society and polity.

Background and facts

The Mandal Commission, formally known as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission, was set up by the Indian government in 1979 to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India and make recommendations for their advancement. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report to the government, recommending that 27% of all government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs. This recommendation was implemented in 1990 by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh, leading to protests and agitation across the country.

The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990 was met with widespread protests and opposition, particularly from upper-caste communities, who argued that it violated the principle of meritocracy and was unconstitutional. The government defended the policy, arguing that it was necessary to provide opportunities to historically marginalized communities and to address the historical injustices of caste discrimination. Several petitions were filed in various high courts challenging the implementation of the reservation policy for OBCs, and eventually, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its judgment in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, addressed several issues related to reservation and its implementation.

The case was first heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1992, which delivered a split verdict.

Procedural History

The procedural history of the case can be divided into the following stages:

The Mandal Commission Report: In 1979, the Mandal Commission was constituted by the Government of India to identify the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in the country and recommend measures for their upliftment. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report, which recommended that 27% of government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs.

Implementation of the Mandal Commission Report: The implementation of the Mandal Commission Report was challenged in various courts across the country. In 1990, the government issued an office memorandum implementing the recommendations of the Commission. This led to widespread protests and agitation by various groups, including students and job seekers.

The Indra Sawhney Case: In 1992, a group of petitioners led by Indra Sawhney, a former civil servant, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report. The petitioners contended that the reservation policy violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Constitution Bench: The case was heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising nine judges. The hearings began in 1992 and continued for almost five years. The bench heard arguments from both sides and also received inputs from various experts and stakeholders.

Interim Orders: During the pendency of the case, the Supreme Court issued several interim orders. In 1993, the court directed that the reservation policy would not be applicable to posts and seats meant for technical and professional courses. In 1997, the court directed that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Judgment: In 1999, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the reservation policy but imposed certain restrictions and conditions. The court held that the reservation should not exceed 50% and that it should be reviewed periodically. The court also held that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Controversies and Criticisms: The judgment in the Indra Sawhney case has been the subject of several controversies and criticisms. Some have criticized the court for diluting the concept of equality by upholding the reservation policy. Others have criticized the court for imposing arbitrary restrictions and conditions on the policy. However, the judgment remains a landmark in Indian legal history and continues to shape the discourse on reservations in the country.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, also referred to as the Mandal Commission case. The issue concerned the implementation of reservations for the socially and economically underprivileged sectors of Indian society in government employment and educational institutions. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge panel issued the ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of OBC reservations in government employment and educational settings. However, it also set certain limitations and conditions for the implementation of reservations.

One of the main issues before the court was whether the classification of the OBCs as a separate category was constitutional. The court held that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and was therefore constitutionally valid. The court also addressed the issue of the maximum limit for reservations. It held that the total reservation should not exceed 50% of the available seats or posts. However, it also allowed for exceptional circumstances where a higher percentage of reservations may be justified.

The court further emphasized that reservations should not be granted on the basis of economic criteria alone and that social and educational backwardness should be the primary criterion for determining eligibility for reservations. The judgment also dealt with the issue of creamy layer exclusion, which refers to excluding the relatively well-off members of the reserved categories from the benefits of reservations. The court held that the creamy layer exclusion should be applied to the OBCs as well and that the exclusion should be based on economic criteria. The court also directed the central government to create a permanent body to regularly review the implementation of reservations and to identify the backward classes that are in need of affirmative action.

Overall, the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment has had a significant impact on the implementation of reservations in India. It has helped to ensure that reservations are not granted arbitrarily or on the basis of economic criteria alone and has set clear guidelines for the implementation of reservations in a fair and just manner.

Analysis

Reservations for Other Backward Classes were implemented as a result of the Mandal Commission Report (OBCs).

The “Creamy Layer” theory was developed by the court to deny the benefits of reservation to specific OBC groups based on their socioeconomic standing.

The Indra Sawhney judgment is a landmark judgment for several reasons. First, it upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for OBCs, but with certain restrictions. The court held that the total reservation, including reservations for SCs and STs, should not exceed 50% of the vacancies. The court also held that the reservation policy should not be based solely on caste but on the backwardness of the classes. The court further held that the creamy layer, i.e., the socially and economically advanced among the OBCs, should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Second, the court gave a detailed analysis of the concept of social backwardness and its relationship with caste. The court observed that social and educational backwardness can be caused by several factors, including poverty, lack of access to education, and geographical isolation. The court held that caste can be a factor in determining social backwardness but cannot be the sole criterion.

Third, the court recognized the importance of affirmative action in ensuring social justice and equality in a society marked by historical discrimination and oppression. The court observed that the Constitution of India envisages a society based on equality and social justice, and affirmative action is necessary to ensure that the benefits of development reach all sections of society.

Fourth, the court recognized the need to balance the competing claims of different sections of society. The court observed that while reservation is an important tool for social justice, it should not be at the cost of efficiency and merit. The court held that reservation should be a temporary measure and should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it does not perpetuate backwardness or lead to reverse discrimination.

Fifth, the court recognized the importance of diversity in a democratic society. The court held that diversity is a source of strength and vitality in a democracy, and any attempt to homogenize society would be against the spirit of the Constitution.

The Indra Sawhney judgment has had a significant impact on Indian society and polity. First, it has led to the implementation of reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, leading to greater representation of OBCs in the public sphere. The judgment has led to a debate on the efficacy of reservation as a tool for social justice. While some have argued that reservation has led to the empowerment of the socially and economically backward classes, others have argued that it has perpetuated caste-based discrimination and led to a decline in the standards of education and administration.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to provide reservations for SEBCs in a limited manner, while also placing certain restrictions on the quantum of reservation and the definition of SEBCs.

The case’s conclusion and suggestions include:

The government can provide reservations for SEBCs, but it should be based on their social and educational backwardness, not their economic status. The reservation for SEBCs should not exceed 50% of the total seats/jobs, and there should be no reservation for the creamy layer. The government should regularly review the list of SEBCs to ensure that only the truly backward classes receive the benefits of reservation. The reservation policy should not undermine the merit-based selection process, and the reserved category candidates must meet the minimum qualifying standards. The government should also work on improving the educational and social status of the backward classes to reduce their dependence on reservations.

This case analysis is done by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

The caste system is a hierarchical system that divides society into different groups of individuals. According to the Hindu system, these groups are called Varnas. The first or the superior Varna is the Brahmins, who perform rituals at the temple and are considered the most educated and respected. The second Varna is the Kshatriyas, who are warriors. The third Varna is the Vishay’s, who are traders or businessmen. The fourth Varna is the Shudras, who are the working class and are considered very low. Before, there was a fifth group, who were called the ‘untouchables.’ Even though untouchability is removed in society, those individuals are now referred to as Dalits. 

This system of caste has been criticized as the upper caste suppresses the lower caste. To eradicate this issue, the Indian Constitution banned the practice of discrimination based on one’s caste and also provided a reservation system, which reserves a certain number of seats in education and job opportunities for the individuals of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled castes, and the OBC’s. 

India has been a country that is very sensitive to topics like caste and religion. Even though laws have been prevailing to eradicate caste discrimination, even now, in the 21st century, case discrimination can be seen in our society. Dalits are still considered low status in society and are not treated well. At times of disasters, Dalits are given no preference in providing safety measures or relief. Dalits also face police brutality, many of which are not even registered according to the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR). In the current context of COVID-19, Dalits are assigned to cremate the bodies of individuals who died due to the COVID-19. In such situations as well, some individuals from the upper caste refuse to agree to cremate their family member’s body as the rituals are done by a Dalit. These incidents highlight the discrimination that the Dalit face. 

Now, let us look into ‘Dalit Lives Matter’(DLM). The DLM protest was compared to the US protest of Black Lives Matter (which was started after the incident of George Floyd, a black man who died due to police brutality). But unlike racial discrimination, caste discrimination in India is multi-layered. The DLM started in 2020 after the gang rape case of a 19-year-old Dalit girl from the state of UP. The girl was gang-raped by four men and even the police did not take any emergency actions on the same. The girl’s dead body was cremated by the police without the permission of her parents and family, without giving a chance for them to see her before the rituals. This incident shows how caste and gender discrimination and violence still prevails in India. There was various other death that happened over the years, almost all of them left without justice. 

The upper caste is well known for their superior position in society and takes advantage of the same by suppressing the lower caste. But will these Dalits find a way out when they are not educated about their rights, or the ones that try to voice out are being shunned by officials like the police? There are so many cases that happen in rural India that go unregistered and unattended. It is high that the state officials take action against caste discrimination. Nearly a century ago, BR Ambedkar was able to bring in rights for the untouchables because he stood against caste discrimination. Hence, the ruling party or the state officials need to stand against caste discrimination to eradicate such discrimination from society. 

But only movements and protests are also not enough. The Dalit community has been living in the shade for years together now, the injustice that happens to them is something that is normalized that they do not find a way out of this loop. Hence to break this loop, it is important to educate the individuals of the Dalit community on their rights. 

Now, let us apply the principle of Article 15 to this. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution states that the ‘state shall not discriminate any individual based on their religion, place of birth, race, and caste. The state is given such power so that it uses the same for the upliftment of the lower groups of the society and given them an equal place in the society similar to the privileged groups. Hence, this Article can be applied to the current topic of discussion, caste discrimination. This article is an addition to the principle of Article 14, which states that every individual should be treated equally under the law, that is fair and justifiable to all individuals and to remove any kind of discrimination. It gives fair treatment between the equals and unequal. 

These Articles were made under the Constitution because, since the time period of pre-independence, the minority community has been shunned by the upper communities. The State was given the power to make laws to eradicate any such discrimination. Under Article 15, there are Acts like the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention Act, 1989, and Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. Anyone who violates the provisions of these Acts can be held liable and given punishment. 

Therefore, these laws should be applied in the matter of Dalit people’s rights and eradicate caste discrimination. New Acts with more strict policies should be initiated by the government that also hold the officials like the police, accountable for their actions on caste discrimination. 

The article has been written by Hiranmayi Rajeev, a 2nd-year law student at Alliance University Bangalore.

The article has been edited by Shubham Yadav, a 4th-year law student at Banasthali Vidyapith, Jaipur.

Latest Posts

• Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
• Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
• Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!  
• Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
• Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!

---

• CLAT-Peeps! (10)
  • Current Affairs (2)
• competitions (132)
• Conferences and Seminars (201)
  • Webinar (1)
• Course and Workshops (107)
• Debates (46)
• Eassy Competitions (69)
• Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
• Guest Blogs (6)
• important (29)
• Internships and Jobs (2,317)
• interviews (8)
• moot court (180)
• Opportuintes (2,731)
  • Job Opportunity (1,191)
• opportunity (2,559)
  • Call for papers (475)
  • Quizes,fests and others (298)
  • Work Opportunity (836)
• Our Blog (1,049)
  • Administrative Law (17)
  • ADR (13)
  • Arms Act (2)
  • Case Analysis (205)
  • Company law (36)
  • Constitutional Law (143)
  • Consumer Protection Act (17)
  • Contract Law (62)
  • CPC (10)
  • Criminal Law (140)
  • Cyber Law (13)
  • Environmental Laws (30)
  • Evidence Act (20)
  • Family Law (12)
  • General (205)
  • International Humanitarian Law (8)
  • International law (23)
  • IPR (10)
  • Jurisprudence (13)
  • labor laws (7)
  • Maritime Laws (1)
  • Partnership Act (2)
  • personal law (33)
  • Taxation (10)
  • Tort (64)
  • Transfer of Property (2)
• Our Services (11)
  • career advice (2)
  • others (6)
• Top Stories (524)
• Uncategorized (720)

Archives

• November 2023 (26)
• October 2023 (1)
• September 2023 (5)
• August 2023 (2)
• July 2023 (25)
• June 2023 (23)
• May 2023 (40)
• April 2023 (136)
• March 2023 (124)
• February 2023 (138)
• January 2023 (61)
• December 2022 (39)
• November 2022 (103)
• October 2022 (178)
• September 2022 (342)
• August 2022 (240)
• July 2022 (273)
• June 2022 (196)
• May 2022 (27)
• April 2022 (99)
• March 2022 (190)
• February 2022 (196)
• January 2022 (193)
• December 2021 (152)
• November 2021 (203)
• October 2021 (189)
• September 2021 (177)
• August 2021 (192)
• July 2021 (393)
• June 2021 (293)
• May 2021 (179)
• April 2021 (61)
• March 2021 (46)
• February 2021 (56)
• January 2021 (63)
• December 2020 (86)
• November 2020 (94)
• October 2020 (146)
• September 2020 (220)
• August 2020 (173)
• July 2020 (165)
• June 2020 (119)
• May 2020 (136)
• April 2020 (7)
• February 2020 (37)
• January 2020 (3)
• November 2019 (1)