Empower ministry to take strict action against TV ads: Soni

In the past one year government had issued 105 notices and on 85 occasions advertisements had been changed or dropped by channels concerned, however, in 15 cases the government is facing litigation

New Delhi: Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni on Tuesday sought support from members of Parliament (MPs) to take strict action against television channels broadcasting objectionable advertisements, reports PTI.

Ms Soni made this appeal in the Lok Sabha during Question Hour as she was flooded with demands for action against television channels showing advertisements which are demeaning and derogatory to women.

She said there were 15 different laws to check content on television and print media and the government had been criticised on many occasions when it had issued advisories to erring media.

"I can work within the ambit of the law. I cannot issue a directive for action against any particular channel or newspaper," Ms Soni said, urging MPs to empower the hands of the ministry to enable strict action against such channels.

Ms Soni pointed out that the government had faced legal notices whenever it had issued advisories to television channels.

She said in the past one year government had issued 105 notices and on 85 occasions advertisements had been changed or dropped by channels concerned. In 15 cases the government was facing litigation, she said.

Ms Soni said a draft Bill to tackle the issue of objectionable advertisements in media has been put up on the website of the I&B ministry and asked members to give their suggestions on the matter.

User

IRDA given life insurance memorandum by Moneylife Foundation

Life insurance is plagued with several issues of mis-selling by intermediaries and even more by banks. Moneylife Foundation has handed over a memorandum to IRDA which highlights the citizens' concerns
   
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has the task of keeping insurance companies in check from mis-selling and profiting from toxic products. IRDA has initiated several steps in this direction. There is always scope for improvement and hence Moneylife foundation decided to meet number of activists, experts, eminent citizens and citizens groups to get their feedback. The issues along with required actions were put in memorandum and given to IRDA on May 10, 2012.

Life insurance issues range from mis-selling by officers of insurance companies which includes forgery and falsification of documents, bancassurance channel which has seen rampant mis-selling, deep reluctance on the part of insurers to sell term plans, traditional products carrying high commission which means poor returns for customers and insurers profiting from lapsed policies and toxic products and so. These are other issues are contained in the memorandum Moneylife Foundation has submitted to the IRDA. A copy is uploaded here.

 

User

COMMENTS

pcchacko

5 years ago

The agents/advisors or other intermediaries selling life Insurance in India are not giving the correct plans suitable to individual situation.Their focus is on teh premium amount and the commission and other benefits they receive .The public too donot try to study the plans and arenot prepared to understand that Life Insurance cover is not an investment but a an essential service to the dependents that in case of premature death of the bread winner the dependents will be asble to generate sufficient income from the investment made by the claim amount.A peron should have 15 times to 25 times as life cover dependeingupon the age and liability of the insured.This can only beachieved by term insurance plans .Here the problem of understanding is that if there is no death within the policy term npthing is payable to the insured. This can be overcome by accepting the plan of term insurance with return of premiums in case there is no claim premium paid will be returned In other words the life cover will be financed from the interest on premium paid and capital is returned. One cannot have full cover through endowment or money back plans or Unit linked plans The Insurers advistors and intermediaries should guide the customers honestly .

REPLY

raj

In Reply to pcchacko 5 years ago

good comment

HC overrules order, holds Cooperative Secretary can hear appeals under MCS

The HC bench held that Rule 105 of MCS Rules provide that the appeals under the Act lie before the state Government and may be heard by the Secretary, Additional Secretary or any of the Deputy Secretaries to the Cooperative department

Mumbai: Overruling its earlier order, the Bombay High Court has held that Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the Maharashtra Government in Cooperation department had the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide appeals filed under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (MCS) Act, reports PTI.

"The earlier judgement holding that hearing of appeals under section 152 of MCS Act by the Secretary, Cooperation Department, was without jurisdiction does not lay down the correct law and the decision is hereby overruled," observed Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Nitin Jamdar recently.

The bench was hearing a reference made by Justice GS Godbole in respect of the provision relating to hearing of appeals by the Secretary in the Cooperation Department of the State of Maharashtra under section 152 of MCS Act.

The petitions filed before Justice Godbole arose from orders passed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in proceedings under Section 11 read with Section 25A of the MCS Act.

All the petitioners had filed statutory appeals under section 152 of the MCS Act before the State Government. The Secretary issued notices to the petitioners to appear before him in respect of hearing of the appeals. This action of the Secretary was questioned in the petitions.

During the hearing of petitions before Justice Godbole, reliance was placed on the judgement of brother Judge RMS Khandeparkar in the case of Ravindra V Gaikwad v/s The State of Maharashtra and others to contend the Secretary had no power to hear the appeals under section 152 of MCS Act.

As Justice Godbole did not agree with the earlier judgement which had held that the Secretary had no power to hear the appeals under MCS Act, he made a reference to a larger bench which has now overruled the judgement delivered by Justice Khandeparkar.

The Bench considered two issues -- firstly whether there was any statutory provision that empowered the Secretary to hear appeals arising under section 152 of MCS Act. And, if there was such a provision, whether it was bad in law because it is not in accordance with the Conduct of Business Rules.

The bench held that Rule 105 of MCS Rules provide that the appeals under the Act lie before the state Government and may be heard by the Secretary, Additional Secretary or any of the Deputy Secretaries to the Cooperative department.

The Judges held that the State Legislature has delegated the power to specify the authority to which the appellate power of the State Government may be delegated. The State Legislature has also retained the power to make such modification in such rules of delegation as the delegate (State Government) may make, the bench observed.

"In our view, therefore, the State Legislature can never be said to have intended to exclude delegation of the appellate power to an authority to officers like Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Government."

It was argued that since the Legislature has conferred appellate powers on the State Government as a rule making authority, the State could not have delegated the appellate power to Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary.

However, the division bench observed that this argument is misconceived. The revisional power is to be exercised where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer and no appeal lies against such decision or order.

"The revisional powers may be exercised not merely upon an application which may be made by any party to the dispute, but such power can also be exercised suo-motu for the purpose of satisfying the revisional authority as to the legality of any order of subordinate officer or as to the regularity of the proceedings. Hence, Legislature deemed it fit to provide that the revisional power may also be exercised by an officer of the rank of Secretary to Government", the bench said.

Thus, there is no illegality in Secretary, Additional Secretary or Deputy Secretary to the Maharashtra Government in Cooperation Department hearing the appeals which lie to the State under the MCS Act, the judges held.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)