{"id":3580,"date":"2025-02-27T11:40:05","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T11:40:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/?p=3580"},"modified":"2025-02-27T11:40:05","modified_gmt":"2025-02-27T11:40:05","slug":"mlc-daily-current-affairs-27-february-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawentranceindia.com\/blogs\/mlc-daily-current-affairs-27-february-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"MLC Daily Current Affairs – 27 February 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today in History (February 27th<\/sup>,2002)<\/h1>\n

In 2002 on 27th February, 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed during the Godhra train burning incident.<\/p>\n

Summary of Today’s News<\/strong><\/h2>\n

South\u2019s share of LS seats will not be affected by delimitation: Shah<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u2022\tPrime Minister Narendra Modi has ensured that no Lok Sabha seat will be reduced on a pro rata\/in propotion basis.
\n\u2022\tShah emphasized that southern states will receive their rightful share if seats are increased.
\nResponse to Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin’s concerns:<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tCM Stalin had warned that Tamil Nadu could lose eight Lok Sabha seats if delimitation is based on population changes from the Census.
\n\u2022\tStalin called for an all-party meeting on March 5, stating Tamil Nadu\u2019s family planning policies have put the state at a disadvantage in terms of electoral representation.
\nShah’s clarification at BJP office inauguration:<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tShah reiterated Modi\u2019s assurance in Parliament that no southern state will lose seats due to delimitation.
\nDMK’s criticism of Shah’s assurance:<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tDMK MP A. Raja found Shah\u2019s assurance \u201cconfusing.\u201d
\n\u2022\tRaja raised the issue of whether the pro rata basis will be based on the existing number of constituencies or population.
\n\u2022\tRaja argued that Tamil Nadu should not be punished for its successful family planning policies.
\nRaja’s concerns regarding delimitation:<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tRaja stated that they oppose not just the reduction of seats, but also the increase in seats for north Indian states based on population.
\n\u2022\tHe argued that pro rata should be based on the 1971 census and the current number of MPs.
\n\u2022\tIf population is used for delimitation, it would harm Tamil Nadu\u2019s representation, as the state\u2019s population has decreased.
\nWhat is Delimitation?<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tAccording to the Election Commission, the word \u2018delimitation\u2019 is defined as \u201cthe act or process of fixing limits\/boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body\u201d.
\n\u2022\tIn the Indian context, the exercise of redrawing the boundaries of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly Constituencies in a region is known as delimitation.
\n\u2022\tIn this process, the number of seats allocated to a particular state\/UT in Lok Sabha or in the Legislative Assembly may vary.
\n\u2022\tFor example \u2013 Delhi, a union territory with legislative assembly, has 7 Lok Sabha constituencies while in the Legislative Assembly it has 70 constituencies.<\/p>\n

Why is it needed?<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tDelimitation helps in redrawing the boundaries (based on the data of the last Census) in such a way that the population of all the constituencies, as far as practicable, remain equal throughout the State\/UT.
\n\u2022\tIt ensures a fair division of geographical areas so that all political parties or candidates contesting elections have a level playing field in terms of a number of voters.
\nWhat are the Constitutional Provisions regarding delimitation in India?<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tArticle 82 and Article 170 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to readjust the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies of States respectively, after every census.
\n\u2022\tAccordingly, the Parliament enacts a Delimitation Commission Act and an independent high-powered panel known as the Delimitation Commission is constituted to carry out the exercise of delimitation.
\n\u2022\tThe Parliament has enacted the Delimitation Commission Acts in 1952, 1962, 1972 and 2002 for this purpose.
\n\u2022\tThe present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census data under the provisions of Delimitation Commission Act, 2002.
\n\u2022\tThe next Delimitation Commission will be set up after 2026.
\n\u2022\tFurther, Article 330 and Article 332 of the Constitution provide for re-fixing the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and the Legislative Assemblies of the states, on the basis of the 2001 census.
\nWhat is Delimitation Commission?<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tThe Delimitation Commission is a high-powered committee entrusted with the task of drawing and redrawing of boundaries of different constituencies for state assembly and Lok Sabha election.
\n\u2022\tIt is appointed by the President and works in collaboration with the Election Commission.
\nThe Commission consists of \u2013 <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tA retired or working Supreme Court Judge (chairperson)
\n\u2022\tElection Commissioner
\n\u2022\tConcerned State Election Commissioners
\n\u2022\tThe Commission\u2019s orders have the force of law and cannot be called in question before any court.
\n\u2022\tThe Commission\u2019s orders are laid before the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies concerned, but they cannot affect any modifications in the orders.<\/p>\n

A message to district magistrates and the police<\/span><\/h3>\n

\u2022\tAuthor: R.K. Vij, Former Indian Police Service officer<\/p>\n

Recent Incident in Indore <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tTwo FIRs registered under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in Indore. IPC-188
\n\u2022\tReason: Violation of District Magistrate\u2019s prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). CrPC-144
\n\u2022\tContext: Orders issued on January 2, 2025, to make Indore beggar-free.
\nFIR Details:<\/strong>
\n\u2022\tOne against a person giving alms to a beggar.
\n\u2022\tOne against a woman beggar\u2019s son who failed to prevent her from begging.
\n\u2022\tFIRs filed by: Begging Eradication Squad officer.
\nRegistering an FIR <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tDistrict administration\u2019s intent: Make Indore beggar-free.
\n\u2022\tLegal issue: FIR cannot be registered for violating orders under Section 163 BNSS.
\n\u2022\tConditions for Section 163 BNSS orders:
\n\u2022\tApplicable only in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
\n\u2022\tRequires sufficient grounds and need for immediate prevention or speedy remedy.
\n\u2022\tAllows directives to abstain from acts causing: obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to life\/health\/safety, disturbance of public tranquillity, riot, or affray.
\n\u2022\tAnalysis: Begging may cause annoyance or disturb tranquillity but does not qualify as an urgent nuisance or danger.
\nLegal Restrictions on FIR <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tSection 215(1)(a) BNSS (equivalent to Section 195 CrPC):
\n\u2022\tCourts cannot take cognisance of offences under Sections 206\u2013223 BNS (excluding 209) without a written complaint from the concerned public servant or authorised subordinate.
\n\u2022\tDespite Section 223 BNS being cognisable, police cannot file an FIR; District Magistrate must file a written complaint with the court.
\n\u2022\tSupreme Court rulings:
\n\u2022\tSection 195 CrPC limits judicial magistrates\u2019 powers to take cognisance (C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010).
\n\u2022\tNon-compliance with Section 195 vitiates prosecution.
\n\u2022\tPurpose: Protect individuals from vexatious prosecutions based on inadequate grounds or malice (State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh, 1994).
\n\u2022\tMadras High Court (Jeevanandham v. State, 2018):
\n\u2022\tPolice cannot register FIRs for offences under Sections 172\u2013188 IPC (Sections 206\u2013223 BNS).
\n\u2022\tPolice can act under Section 35 BNSS (Section 41 CrPC) if offence is committed in their presence or to prevent it.
\n\u2022\tLalita Kumari v. Govt of U.P. (2014): Does not apply to Section 223 BNS FIR registration.
\n\u2022\tChhattisgarh High Court case:
\n\u2022\tQuashed an FIR under Section 188 IPC for violating a DM\u2019s COVID-19 order, reinforcing that FIRs are invalid in such cases.
\nRecommended Action <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tIndore police should:
\n\u2022\tClose the cases.
\n\u2022\tInform the District Magistrate.
\n\u2022\tDistrict Magistrate\u2019s option: File a written complaint with the court under Section 215 BNSS.
\n\u2022\tState government options:
\n\u2022\tAmend Section 215(1) BNSS or enact a local law to make begging a cognisable offence.<\/p>\n

\u2022\tCaution: Converting a petty civil offence into a criminal one is inadvisable.
\n\u2022\tBroader perspective:
\n\u2022\tPunishing alms-givers may deter charity, but prosecuting beggars worsens their plight.
\n\u2022\tSolution: Rehabilitate beggars, not prosecute them.
\nConclusion <\/strong>
\n\u2022\tAn FIR cannot be registered under Section 223 BNS for violating a District Magistrate\u2019s orders under Section 163 BNSS.<\/p>\n