The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF) is to be inter alia utilised for distribution of disgorged amount among eligible and identifiable applicants who have suffered losses due to wrong actions by any person, in accordance with the orders made by the Court which had ordered disgorgement.

Till 05.02.2020, no such order for distribution of any amount has been received. This was stated by Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, Union Minister of State for Finance & Corporate Affairs, in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

During the last three years no funds have been allocated from IEPF Authority to Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and hence no complaints regarding misappropriation of funds by NGOs have been received in the last three years. The IEPF is inter-alia utilised for settlement of claims filed by Claimants and promotion of investor education, awareness and promotion.

Shri Thakur also stated that the IEPF Authority has a toll free helpline to provide the status of refund applications to the Claimants. The number also provides a mechanism for the companies to provide resolution with reference to the various forms relating to the IEPF filed by them. An Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) has also put in place which gives information about the status of the claim filed by the Claimant. Giving more details about the helpline, he said that during the period from September, 2019 to January. 2020, 16,736 calls were answered through the helpline.

The IEPF Authority organizes Investor Awareness Programmes (IAPs), for creating awareness amongst the Investors as a part of its mandate. During the last 3 years, 35,686 such programmes have been organised in rural and urban areas of the country. Apart from this, awareness creating messages are disseminated from time to time through print and electronic media.

Sangeet Natak Akademi (SNA), an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Culture is the nodal agency for the Scheme for ‘Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Diverse Cultural Traditions of India’.

As of now, SNA is collaborating with Zonal Cultural Centers of Ministry, collating and preparing a list of ICH elements for National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage. List of ICH elements is being compiled and at least 100 elements will be documented by March, 2020 and the aim is to document at least 20 new elements in ICH list every year.

Along with this establishment of an ‘Indian Institute for Culture’ is at conceptual stage and a mission called National Culture Mapping portal is being conceptualized for aggregating art forms and artists. It is in pilot phase.

This information was given by the Minister of State (I/c) of Culture and Tourism, Shri Prahlad Singh Patel in a written reply in the Lok Sabha today.

What are the checks available on MPs’ speech? Despite Article 105(2) of the constitution, Whatever an MP says is subject to the discipline of the Rules of Parliament, the “good sense” of Members, and the control of proceedings by the Speaker.

These checks ensure that MPs cannot use “defamatory or indecent or undignified or unparliamentary words” inside the House.

Rules in this regard: Rule 380 (“Expunction”) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha says: “If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, the Speaker may, while exercising discretion order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.”

Rule 381 says: “The portion of the proceedings of the House so expunged shall be marked by asterisks and an explanatory footnote shall be inserted in the proceedings as follows: ‘Expunged as ordered by the Chair’.”

What are Unparliamentary expressions? Who decides on this? There are phrases and words, literally in thousands, both in English and in other Indian languages, that are “unparliamentary”.

The Presiding Officers — Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha — have the job of keeping these bad words out of Parliament’s records. For their reference and help, the Lok Sabha Secretariat has brought out a bulky tome titled ‘Unparliamentary Expressions’, the 2004 edition of which ran into 900 pages.

The list contains several words and expressions that would probably be considered rude or offensive in most cultures; however, it also has stuff that is likely to be thought of as being fairly harmless or innocuous. The state legislatures too are guided mainly by the same book, which also draws heavily from unparliamentary words and phrases used in the Vidhan Sabhas and Vidhan Parishads of India.

Examples of unparliamentary- (Breif overview for understanding): Among the words and phrases that have been deemed unparliamentary are “scumbag”, “shit”, “badmashi”, “bad” (as in “An MP is a bad man”), and “bandicoot”, which is unparliamentary if an MP uses it for another, but which is fine if he uses it for himself.

If the Presiding Officer is a “lady”, no MP can address her as “beloved Chairperson”. The government or another MP cannot be accused of “bluffing”. “Bribe”, “blackmail”, “bribery”, “thief”, “thieves”, “dacoits”, “bucket of shit”, “damn”, “deceive”, “degrade”, and “darling”, are all unparliamentary.

MPs or Presiding Officers can’t be accused of being “double minded”, having “double standards”, being of “doubtful honesty”, being “downtrodden”, indulging in “double talk”, being “lazy”, “lousy”, a “nuisance” or a “loudmouth”.

The government can’t be called “andhi-goongi”, or one of “Ali Baba aur 40 chor”. An illiterate MP can’t be called “angootha chhaap”, and it is unparliamentary to suggest that a member should be sent to the “ajayabghar” (museum).

Background: The report was prepared by an ad hoc committee set up by the Rajya Sabha and led by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh.

Key recommendations: Put in place a multi-pronged strategy involving technological, institutional, social and educational as well as State-level measures. There is a need for code of conduct or a set of guidelines for ensuring child safety online.

There shall be a greater onus on ISPs to identify and remove child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as well as report such content and those trying to access them to the authorities under the national cybercrime portal.

There is also need for strengthening the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) so that it can serve as the nodal body for curbing child pornography. It is suggested that the capabilities required in the NCPCR should include technology, cyberpolicing and prosecution.

Issues with these recommendations: Some of the recommendations are expected to lead to concerns over privacy and misuse.

It is believed that asking ISPs to report content in addition to blocking and filtering may not be practical. The suggestion to break encryption could also just lead to traffic moving to different platforms.

Need of hour: There is a need to develop a victim-centric strategy instead of just focusing on prosecution.