GE ASSIGNMENT

Q2. Please write a detailed note on the following:

1. Is whistleblowing ethical or unethical practice ? Give your detailed opinion on the issue.
Answer: Definition of Whistle Blowing:

 Whistle blowing basically is completed by an employee where he finds that the moral
rules are broken knowingly or unknowingly and an imminent danger for the corporate ,
consumers or the general public . When an employee is functioning in a corporation is a
component of the group where the choices are made and executed.
 The whistle blowing needs a relook at an equivalent work and requires breaking with the
very group that the whistle-blower viewed as critical to financial success of the group and
therefore the company or very survival of the corporate . the choice of whistle blowing
may involve destabilizing one’s life and placing the whole organization under scrutiny.
 The attempt of an employee or former employee of an organisation to disclose what he or
she believes to be wrong doing in or by the organisation. Whistle blowing are often
internal, external, personal, and impersonal. Whistle blowing goes against the strong
bonds in Indian companies and culture norms of showing loyalty.
 A moral dilemma can occur when a loyal employee observes the employer committing or
assisting in an illegal or immoral act and must decide what to try to to . The whistle
blowing might not only lose his or her job but can also experience negative effect on his
career and private life. The pressure on the whistle-blower may range from outright
termination to more subtle pressures.
 The conditions during which whistle blowing is morally justified are:
1. A product or policy which will commit serious and considerable harm to the general public .
2. When the worker identifies a significant threat of harm to the consumers, employees, other
stakeholder, state and things against his or her moral concern.
3. Immediate supervisor doesn't act, should exhaust the interior procedures and chain of
command to the board of directors. No action is taken in spite of best efforts of the workers to
remedy things of unethical actions.
4. the worker must have documented evidence that's convincing to an inexpensive level in order
that the facts are often proved to the surface public and to the test of the law.
5. Valid reasons to believe that revealing the wrongdoing to the general public will end in the
changes within the organisation are necessary to remedy things . the prospect of succeeding must
be adequate to the danger and danger the worker takes to blow the whistle.
 The whistle blower should lookout that the action shouldn't be simple mudslinging or
raising alarm on inaccurate or unjustifiable grounds.
 The areas of special importance are:
i. tip of the corporate to take care of its competitive edge or perform work efficiently.
ii. Whistle blower shouldn't involve himself in personal acquisitions or bringing down the morale
of the organisation.
iii. Accusing manager about incompetent decisions that don't involve ethical issues.
iv. Whistle blowing against violations of code of conduct of the corporate .
 From the above it's going to be seen that a whistle-blower has got to do his homework
well and consider the important consequences before blowing the whistle. It involves
conflict between company goals, legal, moral, personal issues. Before whistle-blowing
one has got to consider what alternatives available to him and thereafter, follow proper
guidelines in reporting the wrongdoing.
 Freedom of speech may be a fundamental right. But how far an employee can use this
against own employer depends upon the subject of grief, knowledge and maturity of the
worker .
 Under what circumstances and against what sort of activities can an employee below
whistle against his seniors or employer is vital . Whistle blowing are often treated as
 questionable loyalty or strongly worked suggestion. the way to treat it depends upon the
way it's presented and therefore the broad minded attitude of the management.
 An employee are going to be during a moral dilemma whenever he finds that his
employer is doing illegal or immoral act and can be in confusion of future course of his
action. A whistle blower risks his job and sometime even future career. In Indian
conditions there are various examples where an employee complains to PF Commissioner
or tax Commissioner or nuisance tax Commissioner for violation of act and loose the
work within the process.
 This brings during a situation where a whistle blower is branded as ‘unfair’ by employer
but his activities are ‘fair’ as per the law and as per his friends and family. thanks to fear
of losing the work many employees avoid or delay whistle blowing. Most of them roll in
the hay safely after changing the work . This sometime might be too late to alert the
authorities concerned.
 Justification of Whistle Blowing:
There are certain situations when the whistle blowing are often justified.
There are:
(1) Whenever and wherever the product/service of the firm will cause considerable harm to the
general public .
(2) Whenever an employee feels serious threat or harm to him or anybody he should report back
to the firm.
(3) Before reporting any subject an employee should have documental evidence which should
convince on impartial observer about the need of whistle blowing.
(4) If an instantaneous boss doesn't look after report (whistle blowing) the worker should go up
to highest level to present his case.
(5) there's always some risk involved in whistle blowing. If the worker is fully convinced of his
good intentions and serves good cause for society he should plow ahead with whistle blowing.
The risks of whistle blowing are often ill-treatment, withdrawal of perks, transfer, difficult work
and task and lastly termination. In some countries there's protection from termination to whistle
blowers. However this only helps to retain job. The management can always harass or trouble an
employee without termination. it's difficult to figure in any company by going against the
management.

Wrong sorts of Whistle Blowers:

There are certain sorts of whistle blowers who roll in the hay on false accusations and with ill
intentions. Such employees shouldn't be protected.
Following cases show how freedom of speech is misutilised by the whistle blowers:
(1) just in case of exposing business secrecy, inventions, future plans and a few specific
specialised practices which can be confidential and of exclusive company usage.
(2) Whenever an employee remarks are irrelevant to the organisations work and merchandise .
(3) just in case of wrong accusations which can't be proved and which are made in vengeance
only find yourself demoralizing the workers .
(4) When an employee is complaining against transfer, demotion or discharge when such action
is taken on the idea of routine performance appraisal.
Precautions before Whistle Blowing:
Whistle blowing has consequences of ethical , legal, personal, economic, family and career
demands. it's a significant step with definite consequences.
Precautions to be taken before blowing a whistle:
i. Be clear about your intensions and certain consequences. plow ahead as long as you're
convinced that things warrants whistle blowing.
ii. Compile documents to support your case. don't depend on hearsay.
iii. Allegations should be stated appropriately with documents and to be sent to the proper
person/ position.
iv. Preferably take the interior route. If this doesn't work then try external route.
v. Whistle blowing are often done openly or anonymously. If identity is disclosed are should be
prepared to face the results .
vi. Decide if it's appropriate to require action immediately after sometime later or during the
service.
vii. Consult a lawyer about possible legal battle and defense mechanism .
Actions to stop External Whistle Blowing:
Employers should organise grievance redressal systems. this may help employees to return
forward with grievances. The committee will attend the grievance and resolve them with the
assistance of top management. The external whistle blowing can also be haunted by the
grievance committee.
The following action are going to be reduce or prevent external whistle blowing:
(1) Create an efficient internal grievance system in order that both present and past employees
haven't any reasons to complain.
(2) Appreciate employees and even adopt reward system for solving problems though grievance
redressal system.
(3) Keep special officers in each unit to review and evaluate wrong doings by various employees.
(4) Punish with heavy fines or retrenchment of employees who enjoys unlawful and corrupt
practices.
It is always advisable to rent , train and promote morally and legally sensitive and responsive
managers who work for welfare of all the stakeholders. Whistle blowing should be a final resort
to awake the organisations.
An employee loyalty is best explained by trying to vary for the higher by gradual and persuasive
method instead of whistle blowing. None of the organisations can claim to be 100% ideal
altogether aspects of employment and organisational working. Continuous efforts should be
wiped out pursuit of perfection.
Empowerment of the Weakest, Unique and Balance of Power:
On few occasions management takes complex problems with managing very weak and really
talented employees:
(a) Empowering Weak Employees:
This situation involves relocation, retraining and providing lighter or suitable work load.
However, this sounds more sort of a social resettlement. In commercial organisation the practice
is to force the VRS scheme or dismiss such employees. From employer point of view it's fair to
the corporate and anxious employee feels it unfair practice. Hence some issues are very delicate
to make a decision ethical or unethical.
(b) Empowerment of the Unique Employees:
Unique employees are those that are (i) talented but not qualified or (ii) talented but not
experienced. The unique category must be encouraged. But this is often difficult to try to to
without creating unequal employment practices. it's fair to encourage the talent but unfair to
market them neglecting other colleagues. Hence this is often also a fragile subject to make a
decision ethical or unethical.
Balancing the Situation:
There is no standard formula or theory to try to to balancing act on above two sorts of
empowerment situations. things depends on the corporate , work environment and therefore the
extent of union activities. Decision has got to be taken supported consensus opinion between
management and therefore the union. If no consensus is received the established order continues.

2. Mr. Arvind Gupta unearthed the ongoing alleged unethical practices in the banking
sector in India. Comment on views on it.
Answer:
The former ICICI Bank chairperson Chanda Kochhar, the glamour girl of Indian Banking
is now facing her worst phase of life. She was one of the main poster girls of women
empowerment in India’s Corporate and Banking sectors, though we (collectively the media)
kept silent despite the knowledge that she was propped up by her mentor and former ICICI
Bank Chairman K V Kamath, who sidelined many a worthy candidate and picked her to
succeed him. Placing his protégé Chanda allowed Kamath to run the bank via remote control.
The 58-year-old Chanda Kochhar committed fraud and accepting bribes through her
husband Deepak Kochhar for giving loans to the debt-ridden Videocon Group in 2012. But
her frauds went undetected for a long time.

After four years, in March 2016, Arvind Gupta, a well-known litigator who runs an
organization for protection for small investors first filed a complaint against Chanda Kochhar. In
his detailed complaint, he described how Chanda’s husband Deepak got around 10% from
Videocon Group for getting loans from ICICI Bank and diverted the money to his company
NuPower, a company engaged in windmills and power generation. Arvind Gupta filed his eight-
page detailed complaint to all agencies like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Securities and
Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Serious Frauds Investigation Office (SFIO) and
even to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi in March 2016. He further published this complaint
in his blog and even in an industry lobbying magazine. Unfortunately, no one noticed it. What
happened to the specific crystal complaint by Arvind Gupta? The answer is: Nothing. Why?

Powerful mentors

Because Chanda Kochhar has two powerful mentors. Who are they? They are the former Finance
Ministers of India. One is the late Arun Jaitley and his good friend, the corrupt, crooked P
Chidambaram.  Till March 2018, the petitioner Arvind Gupta was knocking on all doors
including all the media houses and editors with a copy of his detailed complaint. No one dared to
publish this big scam by the lady banking head as her ICICI Bank was one of the biggest
advertisers in Media. Moreover, Chanda Kochhar was so benevolent to all media houses and
their owners in throwing bones to barking dogs.

Several media houses and owners got soft loans from the ICICI Bank. We at PGurus reported the
banking loan fraud of NDTV’s owner Prannoy Roy, who used the ICICI Bank loan to his shell
firm, misusing the name of the public limited listed firm NDTV and using around Rs.45
crores to buy a palatial home in South Africa. There were allegations that some in the media
extracted money for not publishing this complaint and enjoying benevolence from the concerned
persons.
For two years nothing was happening on Arvind Gupta’s complaint against Chanda Kochhar and
family and Videocon Group. In the third week of March 2018, a whistleblower officer alerted
the research team of PGurus about the hard-hitting petition, kept in the deep freezers of the
agencies even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi directed to probe. We at PGurus in no time
published the explosive report about this and the full complaint on March 25, 2018. The next
day, ICICI Bank, in a panic, issued a press release about the issue and after this only ‘Indian
Express’ newspaper took it forward. Then the other media jumped on the bandwagon and within
weeks Chanda Kochhar resigned to save her skin.

Prime Minister Modi then ordered the agencies to probe, but the then Finance Minister Arun
Jaitley put a kibosh on it. Then CBI registered a case and the ED jumped on and two days back
(Jan 10) attached the assets of Chanda Kochhar and her husband’s firms worth Rs.600 crores
(book value of Rs.75 crores).

Chanda and husband Deepak, and the Videocon Group promoters were shuttling to different
agencies from CBI to ED to SFIO to Income Tax after Modi’s Order. But Jaitley was playing all
kinds of tricks to delay the probe. When the then FM rushed to the United States for Cancer
treatment in January 2019 the CBI registered a First Information Report (FIR) in the case.
From the United States, ignoring that he is a minister (he had pontificated once that leaders
should be disciplined!), Jaitley tweeted against the CBI!. We at PGurus blasted Jaitley for this
unholy action – I myself wrote an article blasting Jaitley for this uncouth activity. With Prime
Minister’s solid backing, the agencies ignored the tantrums thrown by the Finance Minister and
went ahead.

Now Chanda Kochhar is paying for her sins. Let the law take its own course of action. No one is
above law. I hope this episode will be a lesson for the next-generation, who will be entering the
Corporate World, Banking or any public service.

3. What are the prevailing laws and practices in India for protection of the
whistleblowers?
Answer:
Whistleblowers And Their Protection In India:
• History is witness that there have always been informers who reveal details to others. Ancient
Greeks talked about whistleblowing centuries before. Lykourgos, the Athenian orator, in his
speech against Leokratis said: neither laws nor judges can bring any results, unless someone
denounces the wrongdoers.
• Also in Ancient India, the concept of a Whistleblower was alive , Kautilya proposed- “Any
informant (súchaka) who supplies information about embezzlement slightly below perpetration
shall, if he succeeds in proving it, get as reward one-sixth of the number in question; if he
happens to be a government servant (bhritaka), he shall get for the same act one-twelfth of the
number .”.
• The term whistleblowing probably arises by analogy with the referee or umpire who draws
public attention to a foul during a game by blowing of the whistle which could alert both the
enforcement officers and thus the overall public of danger.
• The term ‘whistle-blowing’ could also be a comparatively recent entry into the vocabulary of
public and company affairs although the phenomenon itself isn't new.
• Whistle blowers are individuals who expose corruption and fraud in organizations by filing a
law suit or a complaint with Government authorities that prompts a criminal investigation in to
the organizations alleged behavior.
• US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase within the first 1970s to avoid the negative
connotations found in other words like "informers" and "snitches".
Some important Definitions of whistle blowing are
• R.M Green (1994) defines a whistleblower as an Employee who, perceiving an practice that he
believes to be illegal or unethical, seeks to stop this practice by alerting top management or
failing that by notifying authorities outside the organization.
• Sekhar (2002) defines whistleblowing as an attempt by an employee or a former employee of
an organization to disclose what he proclaims to be wrong doing in or by that organization.
• Koehn (2003) whistle blowing occurs when an employee informs the overall public of
inappropriate activities happening inside the organization.
• Whistleblowing OF Boatright (2003) is that the discharge of knowledge by a member or former
member of an organization this is often often evidence of illegal and/or immoral conduct within
the organization that's not within the general public interest.
Types Of Whistleblowers:
 Internal: When the whistleblower reports the wrong doings to the officials at higher position
within the organization. the quality subjects of internal whistleblowing are disloyality , improper
conduct, indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience etc.
 External: Where the wrongdoings are reported to the people outside the organization like
media, public interest groups or enforcement agencies it's called external whistleblowing.
 Alumini: When the whistleblowing is completed by the previous employee of the
organization it's called alumini whistle blowing.
 Open: When the identity of the whistleblower is revealed, it's called Open Whistle Blowing.
 Personal: Where the organizational wrongdoings are to harm one person only, disclosing such
wrong doings it's called personal whistle blowing.
 Impersonal: When the wrong doing is to harm others, it's called impersonal whistle blowing.
 Government: When a disclosure is made about wrong doings or unethical practices adopted
by the officials of the govt. .
 Corporate: When a disclosure is made about the wrongdoings during a business corporation,
it's called corporate whistle blowing.

• Whistleblower Protection Act 2011

Introduction
• There are multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of varied
whistleblowers.
• An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the
whistle during a corruption case within the National Highways Authority of India’s Golden
Quadrilateral project. Two years later, an Indian Oil Corporation officer, Shanmughan
Manjunath, was murdered for sealing a petroleum pump that was selling adulterated fuel. A
movie/Film has been made supported the said incident titled ‘Manjunath’(2014).
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of India which provides a
mechanism to research alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants and also
protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies, projects and offices. The
wrongdoing might take the shape of fraud, corruption or mismanagement.
• The Act was approved by the cupboard of India as a part of a drive to eliminate corruption
within the country's bureaucracy and gone by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011.
• The Bill became an Act when it had been gone by the Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and
received the President's assent on 9 May 2014. Corruption may be a social evil which prevents
proper and balanced social growth and economic development.
one among the impediments felt in eliminating corruption within the Government and therefore
the public sector undertakings is lack of adequate protection to the complainants reporting the
corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable
loss to the govt or commission of a criminal offence by a employee . it had been decided to enact
a separate legislation to supply adequate protection to the persons reporting corruption or willful
misuse of power or discretion which causes loss to the govt or who disclose the commission of a
criminal offence by a employee .
The Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011 (hereinafter mentioned as “the Bill”) may be a novel
legislation that gives for the general public interest disclosure and protection to whistle blowers.
Whistle blowing is that the act of exposing information by an employee or any stakeholder about
an illegal or unethical conduct within a corporation . Oxford dictionary defines a whistleblower
as an individual who informs a few person or organization engaged in a bootleg activity.

TheWhistleblower ProtectionBill may be a bill that seeks to determine a mechanism to receive

complaints concerning disclosure on any allegation of corruption or willful misuse of power or
willful misuse of discretion against any employee and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such
disclosure and to supply adequate safeguards against victimization of the person making such
complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
The Law Commission of India in 2001 had recommended that so as to eliminate corruption, a
law to guard whistleblowers was essential.

It had drafted a Bill too on this issue . In 2004, in response to a petition filed after the infamous
murder of NHAI Official SatyendraDubey, the Supreme Court directed that machinery be put in
situ for working on complaints from whistleblowers till a law is enacted.
the govt notified a resolution in 2004 that gave the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) the
facility to act on complaints from whistleblowers. Since 2004, CVC has received 1,354
complaints from whistleblowers .

In 2007, the report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission also recommended that a
selected law be enacted to guard whistleblowers. India is additionally a signatory (not ratified) to
the UN Convention against Corruption since 2005, which enjoins states to facilitate reporting of
corruption by public officials and supply protection against retaliation for witnesses and experts.
The Bill replaces the 2004 government resolution and sets up a mechanism to receive complaints
of corruption or willful misuse of power by a employee . It also provides safeguards against
victimization of the person making the complaint.

Corruption may be a social evil which prevents proper and balanced social growth and economic
development. one among the impediments felt in eliminating corruption within the Government
and therefore the public sector undertakings is lack of adequate protection to the complainants
reporting the corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion which causes
demonstrable loss to the govt or commission of a criminal offence by a employee .
It has been felt that the persons who report the corruption or willful misuse of power or willful
misuse of discretion which cause demonstrable loss to the govt. or commission of a criminal
offence by a employee need statutory protection as protection given to them by the said
Resolution of the govt of India of 2004 wouldn't suffice.

In view of the position stated within the forgoing paragraphs, it had been decided to enact a
separate legislation to supply adequate protection to the persons reporting corruption or willful
misuse of power or discretion which causes loss to the govt or who disclose the commission of a
criminal offence by a employee . Furthermore, it aims at providing the procedure to discuss such
disclosure and to supply adequate safeguards against victimization of the whistle-blowers and
persons reporting matters regarding the corruption by a employee punishment for revealing the
identity of a complainant, negligently or malafidely and also to those that file false or frivolous
complaints.

The Bill, under section 3, provides that any employee or the other person including a non-
governmental organization may make a public interest disclosure to a Competent Authority i.e.
the Central or State Vigilance Commission. “Disclosure” has been defined as any complaint
made in writing or electronic message against a employee on matters associated with (a) plan to
or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (b) willful misuse of
power which results in demonstrable loss to the govt or gain to the general public servant; or (c) )
attempt or commission of a criminal offence by a employee . A “public servant” has been
defined as any person who is an employee of the central government or the state government or
any company or society owned or controlled by the central or state government. However, the
bill restricts the public interest disclosures accepted against defence, police and intelligence
personnel. Furthermore, each disclosure shall be accompanied by full particulars and supporting
documents. The Vigilance Commission is not to entertain anonymous complaints.

The Bill, under section 6 provides for the procedure of inquiry. The Vigilance Commission, at
first, should ascertain the identity of the complainant and has to protect such identity unless the
complainant has revealed it to any other authority. It shall then decide whether the matter needs
to be investigated based on the disclosure or after making discreet inquiries. On the decision of
the investigation, it should seek an explanation from the head of the concerned department,
office, or as the case maybe. The Commission has to protect the identity of the complainant to
the head of the organisation or department unless itbecomes imminently necessary to do so. Even
then, the head of the organisation cannot reveal the identity of the complainant. After conducting
the inquiry, if the commission feels that there is no substantial matter or merit in the case, it shall
close the case or if the inquiry substantiates allegation of corruption or misuse of power, it shall
recommend certain measures to the public authority within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
The bill also provides or the measures to be taken such as it can initiate proceedings against the
concerned public servant or it can take steps to redress the loss that has been caused to the
government. It can also recommend the initiation of criminal proceedings against the official or
necessary corrective measure. Other than these, it can take any other action.

The bill exempts certain matter under section 11 from inquiry of the Vigilance Commission such
as when it has been decided by a Court or Tribunal, if a public inquiry has been ordered, or if the
complaint is made five years after the action. The Bill also exempts disclosure of proceedings of
the cupboard if it's likely to affect the sovereignty of India, security of the state, friendly relations
with foreign states, public order, decency or morality which has to be certified by the Secretary
to the State or Central Government.

The name of the Bill itself makes it very clear that the purpose of this act is the protection of the
persons who make public interest disclosure or have assisted in such matters from possible
victimization or harassment and the Central Government has to ensure such protection .

The Commission has been empowered to give proper direction to the concerned authorities for
the protection of complainant or witness either on an application by the complainant or based on
its own information. It can also direct that the public servant who made the disclosure may be
restored to his previous position .The Vigilance Commission shall protect the identity of the
complainant and related documents, unless it decides against doing so, or is required by a court
to try to to so. Furthermore, the Commission is empowered to pass interim orders to prevent any
ac of corruption continuing during inquiry

The Bill,under section 16, lays down that for not furnishing reports to the Vigilance
Commission, a fine of up to Rs 250 shall be imposed for each day till the report is submitted.
The total penalty amount however cannot exceed Rs 50,000. The penalty for revealing the
identity of complainant negligently or due to mala fide reasons, the penalty is imprisonment for
up to 3 years and a fine of up to Rs 50,000. When a person knowingly makes false or misleading
disclosures with mala fide intentions, the penalty is imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine of up
to Rs 30,000. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Vigilance Commission relating to
imposition of penalty for not furnishing reports or revealing identity of complainant may file an
appeal to the High Court within 60 day.
While the Government of India has vowed to curb corruption, its methods have not yet been
testimonial to its declaration. No doubt, the introduction of this bill is a welcome step towards
the fight against corruption and protection of those who provide for the public interest disclosure
but the first step is itself suffering from various deficiencies and flaws.
The Bill provides that the Competent Authority shall not investigate,(i) any disclosure which is
made after the expiry of twelve monthsfrom the date on which the action complained against
becomesknown to the complainant; and(ii) any disclosure involving an allegation, if the
complaint is madeafter the expiry of five years from the date on which the actioncomplained
against is alleged to have taken place. This provision is not just unnecessary but it will be used
by the bureaucracy to deter the investigation on the basis of technical ground, i.e. whether or not
thecomplainant had come to know of the disclosure within a period of twelvemonths or not and
whether the date of commission of offence was withina period of five years or not,rather than the
merits of the case.
On the contrary, it is required that the cases of corruption be investigated on the sole ground of
merit and it should not make any difference whether the complainant had come to know of the
disclosure within a period of twelve months or not.
A case of corruption does not become pardonable after five years. It is high time that the
government takes a serious note of the noble fight against corruption. Furthermore, it is a matter
of grave concern that an exception has been created in favor of the armed forces and intelligence
agencies and that too without cogent reasons.
It is important to note here that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not create an exception
in favor of armed forces and even the intelligence agencies have not been fully exempted from
its purview and such organizations are fully disclosable in relation to human rights violation and
corruption. This bill aims at tackling corruption and thus, there seems no reasonable excuse for
such outright exemptions.

However, certain matters such as those in relation of national security and others may be
exempted for obvious reasons. Also, this bill exempts the Private Sector but considering the
recent cases like the Satyam fraud case, the Indian Premiere League scandal, etc. it seems
only just and reasonable that the same be brought within the purview of this legislation along
with the various NGOs.

Corruption in higher judiciary and the various levels of the government i.e. the ministries,
regulatory authorities etc is growing out of proportion. Thus, it is of utmost necessity that the
council of ministers, judges of the higher judiciary and others be brought within the ambit of
this bill. Another important aspect is regarding the efficacy of the CVC/SVC being the sole
authority to receive the disclosure.Thisseems absurd considering the vast stretches of this
country. Thus, it is necessary that a smooth and convenient system for the receipt of the
various complaints be formulated instead of the authorities being at the national or state
capital only. However, it is pertinent to note here that the formulation of such system must not
weaken the system by creating loopholes so that the identity of victim is protected for sure.

The Bill provides for receiving complaints even through electronic method which is quite
necessary in modern times. However, the use of electronic methods may not be so safe for the
whistleblower and thus it is important that stringent rules and regulations be framed in this
regard such that the identity of the whistleblower is kept secret at any cost.

An absence of a fool proof mechanism in this respect would definitely deter prospective
complainants due to fear of victimization which would then defeat the very object of this law.
Another suggestion would be that an anonymous complaint should not be rejected on the sole
ground of anonymity in a case where the facts mentioned in the case and various supporting
documents provide for a prima faciecase.

An important recommendation in this regard is that the identity of the complainant should not
be revealed even to the head of department concerned without the complainant’s consent as
the protection of identity of the complainant is pivotal for the successful implementation of
this statute.
 Another observation is that the main intention of the complainant while making a disclosure
is the protection of public interest and undue burden should not be put on the person for
providing substantial proof to support his/her case. It would be unreasonable to expect an
ordinary citizen who is at the receiving end of the minimal resources and the sufferer of
corruption to provide sufficient proof to substantiate his/her complaint. It is suggested that the
Competent Authority should take reasonable steps so that when a prime facie case is made
out, he should be able to follow up the complaint to its own logical conclusion.

In India, we find that there is not absence of statutes or proper laws in our country rather the
effective execution and implementation of such laws. The Right to Information Act 2005 has
been quite successful in India mainly due to the time bound limitations on the officials to
provide the information. Thus, it is essential for this bill to follow the same lead so as to have
a proper implementation. Thus, a particular time limit should be provided within which the
Competent Authority has to complete the investigation. And it could also be provided that if
the time period is to be extended, it cannot go beyond a certain point. This bill, however, does
not provide any rule in case of non-adherence to the recommendation of the Competent
Authority.

In absence of such provision, the implementation of the recommendation cannot be ensured.

If such a provision is missing, then one excuse or other defeating the very objective of this
legislation will definitely delay the implementation.

Thus, it becomes necessary that a proper mechanism be ensured so that direction of the
Competent Authority is not avoided to protect the wrong doers. Also, this bill empowers the
Competent Authority to recommend initiation of criminal proceedings under relevant
provisions and considering the fact the there is no limitation period under our criminal
system, the statutory time limit of five years be dissolved.

Further, limiting cases older than five years doesnot sound well even on the ground the
relevant records may not be available. It is of general practice that records are properly kept
for much longer period than of five years. Another important aspect is that the Bill does not
define victimization thus leaving a gray area which could definitely be exploited for the
benefit of those in power.

An important feature of any law is the faith of the people in that law. In this case, an effective
mechanism to ensure protection of life, liberty and property of complainant will be
proportional to the faith of the people in our system that strives to ensure accountability and
transparency. In this bill, the onus to protect the whistleblower is on the central government.

However, this poses a serious problem in a federal set up like India because it cannot be
possible for the central government alone to provide for protection of employees of the state
government and the state government will have to ensure the protection in such cases.
Another important deterrence against whistle blowing may emerge in the form of quantum of
punishment for frivolous or mala fide complaints. While it is necessary that such complaints
be punished, the possibility of exploiting this provision for the harassment of the innocent
whistleblowers cannot be avoided. In cases where the accused is all powerful, this provision
will have a great deterrent effect on the public.

Thus, it is of imminent necessity that the quantum of punishment be substantially reduced.

Also, the Competent Authority should exercise great caution while labeling a complaint as
frivolous or mala fide. It cannot be termed so merely on the ground that the allegations are not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The focus has to be on the intention and not on the outcome. Another important
recommendation is that the word ‘recommendation’ of the Competent Authority be replaced
 by ‘directions’ such as to provide greater emphasis. Furthermore, the establishment of proper
and special courts for this specific law will be a great supplement to this enactment.

It is true that corruption cannot be totally driven out of any society but it is also true that
proper laws and effective implementation of such laws will definitely reduce the ever rising
levels of corruption.

The Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011, in reality, seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the
various gruesome and cruel cases such as Satyendra Dubey murder case where Mr. Satyendra
Dubey, a project director at the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was murdered
after fighting corruption in the Golden Quadrilateral highway construction project. Similar to
this was the Manjunath case in which Mr. Shanmughan Manjunath, an Indian Oil Corporation
employee was brutally murdered by the oil mafias in 2005 when he tried to check petrol
adulteration in Uttar Pradesh.

There have been various other cases of whistleblower victimization which have shocked the
conscience of the society at large and led to huge public outcry. Unless the above
recommendations are properly introduced in this legislation, it will be not be able to achieve
the object of this Bill. As on 1st September 2013,

The Bill is still pending even though it has been passed by the Lok Sabha. The lack of public
debate on this Bill is itself evident of the attitude of the government as it is customary that a
new piece of legislation is sent to the state governments and views and opinions of the public
are also invited, which has not been done in this case. It is time that the government takes a
tough stance against rising corruption.

Not all whistleblowing laws provide for financial rewards to whistleblowers for exposing the
underlying fraud, but they often provide whistleblowers with protection from retaliation and
other employment remedies.  Numerous other federal and state laws provide protections for
those engaged in whistleblowing activity in various contexts.  Here are some of the
whistleblowing laws in key industries.

 Sarbanes-Oxley. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects employees (as well as

contractors and agents) of publicly traded companies who report fraud by the company
against its shareholders. Employees who prevail under this statute may be entitled to
reinstatement to their prior position or seniority level, backpay, special damages (for
reputational damages or emotional distress) and whistleblower attorney’s fees.
 Consumer Finance Protection. The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 was
passed as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation. It protects whistleblowers for reporting
violations of numerous federal laws governing consumer financial products and services
such as mortgages, credit cards and loans. These include the Truth in Lending Act, the
Fair Debt Collections Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Consumer Leasing Act
and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This law contains strong anti-retaliation provisions
modeled after Sarbanes-Oxley. Employees who prevail under this statute may be entitled
to reinstatement to their prior position or seniority level, backpay, special damages (for
reputational damages or emotional distress) and whistleblower attorney’s fees.
 Consumer Products Safety. The Consumer Products Safety Act of 2008 provides
protections for whistleblowers reporting on violations of safety standards for consumer
products. It was enacted largely in response to some of the high-profile product recalls
that had occurred because of contamination from lead and other toxic chemicals.
Employees who prevail under this statute may be entitled to reinstatement to their prior
position or seniority level, backpay, special damages (for reputational damages or
emotional distress) and whistleblower attorney’s fees.
 Food Product Safety. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 provides protections
for whistleblowers reporting on violations of food safety standards. It was enacted in
response to several incidents involving wide-scale food contamination and recalls such as
with eggs, peanut butter and pet food. The anti-retaliation provisions are modeled on the
Consumer Product Safety Act’s provisions. Employees who prevail under this statute
may be entitled to reinstatement to their prior position or seniority level, backpay, special
damages (for reputational damages or emotional distress) and whistleblower attorney’s
fees.
 Environmental Protection. There are at least seven principal federal environmental laws
that have whistleblower provisions to protect government or private employees reporting
environmental violations under the statutes. These include the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund Law, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Employees who
prevail under this statute may be entitled to reinstatement to their prior position or
seniority level, backpay, special damages (for reputational damages or emotional distress)
and whistleblower attorney’s fees.
 Nuclear Safety. The Energy Reorganization Act provides protections for whistleblowers
reporting on violations in the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries. This statute
was recently amended to permit employees in some cases to file claims in federal court.
Employees who prevail under this statute may be entitled to reinstatement to their prior
position or seniority level, backpay, special damages (for reputational damages or
emotional distress) and whistleblower attorney’s fees.

• Federal Government Employees. The Whistleblower Protection Act (part of the

Civil Service Reform Act) protects whistleblowers who are federal employees
reporting violations by their particular government agency employers. These
protections generally do not apply to employees working for some agencies dealing
with national security. The exclusion of these employees stems from concerns
relating to the disclosure of confidential information implicating national security.
For these employees, there are limited whistleblower protections provided through
other sources like the FBI Whistleblower Protection Act, the military officer Act, the
Privacy Act, the primary Amendment and the anti-discrimination laws such as the
Civil Rights Act and Title VII.
• Military. The Military Whistleblower Protection Act protects whistleblowers within
the military reporting on violations of law, discriminatory conduct, abuse of authority
and public health and questions of safety .
• Employment Discrimination. All of the principal federal employment discrimination
laws include whistleblower protection provisions. These include the Civil Rights Act,
the Age Discrimination Act, the American with Disabilities Act, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
• Airline Safety. The Aviation Investment and Reform Act protects whistleblowers
reporting on airline safety issues.
• Pipeline Safety. Modeled directly after the Energy Reorganization Act, the Pipeline
Safety Act protects whistleblowers reporting on environmental and safety violations
at oil and gas pipelines.
• Mine Safety. The Mine Health and Safety Act protects whistleblowers reporting on
health and safety violations in mines.
• Maritime Safety. The Protection of Seaman Against Discrimination Law protects
whistleblowers reporting on violations of the maritime laws.
• Pros & Cons
 Pros
o The Act, under section 3, provides that any employee or the other person including
a non-governmental organization may make a public interest disclosure to a
Competent Authority.
o what's important under this Act is that the term “Public Interest Disclosure” which
is supposed to be any disclosure by a employee or the other person including any
NGO before the Competent Authority notwithstanding anything contained within the
provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 publicly interest.

Any disclosure made under this Act shall be treated as public interest disclosure for
the requirements of this Act and shall be made before the Competent Authority and
thus the complaint shall be received by such authority as could also be specified by
regulations made by the Competent Authority.

o The name of the Act itself makes it very clear that the aim of this act is that the
protection of the persons who make public interest disclosure or have assisted in such
matters from possible victimization or harassment and therefore the Central
Government has got to ensure such protection . The Competent Authority has been
empowered to offer proper direction to the concerned authorities for the protection of
complainant or witness either on an application by the complainant or supported its
own information. It also can direct that the general public servant who made the
disclosure could also be restored to his previous position.

o The Commission Vigiliance has got to protect the identity of the complainant and
related documents, unless it decides against doing so, or is required by a court to try
to to so. Furthermore, the Commission is empowered to pass interim orders to stop
any act of corruption continuing during inquiry.
o If a person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the bottom that he/she
had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry than he/she
may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress within the
matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and should give
suitable directions to the concerned employee or the general public authority, because
the case could also be , to guard such person from being victimised or avoid his
victimization.

 Cons
o The Act of Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 has neither provisions to
encourage whistleblowing (financial incentives), nor deals with corporate
whistleblowers; it doesn't extend its jurisdiction to the private sectorand it doesn't
include the definition of victimisation. Further, competent authorities under the Act
are very limited and right of appeal isn't provided to the complainant just in case
he/she isn't satisfied by any order of the competent authority. Appeal provisions are
provided only concerning imposition of penalty.
o Actions on anonymous complaints haven't been included within the ambit of the
Act. The Lokpal (National level apex anti‐corruption and Grievance Redress agency)
which can be established under the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 will haven't any
role to play within the scheme of protection of Whistleblowers. , the Lokpal should
even have been mentioned as a competent authority under the Act for the aim of
receiving complaints.
o The Act doesn't specify a procedure for inquiring into complaints of about acts of
corruption, willful abuse of power or willful misuse of discretion or offences
committed by members of the lower judiciary
• Suggestions
1. There should be dissemination of data about the meaning and concept of
Whistleblowers Protection Act. Seminars should be conducted in Government
organizations also as Private Organizations to tell employees and employers of
 the importance of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. The modes of creating
disclosures need to be explained to the workers .
2. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 should be amended so on include
protection to non-public enterprises. A model Whistleblowers Policy might be
framed by a special committee constituted under the Whistleblower Protection
Rules . The Whistleblowers policy would then be compulsorily established and
followed privately enterprises keeping the skeleton of the Model formulated
under the Whistleblowers Protection Rules but supplementing it with each
companies own rules and regulation because the circumstances differ in each and
every company.
3. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011 should be amended so on include the
giving of incentives to Whistleblowers whose disclosures are proved to be correct
after the hearing and have substance.
4. The Whistleblowers Protection Act , 2011 should even be amended to
incorporate the definition of ‘victimization’ . The amendment is extremely
necessary because the entire Act deals with protection to whistleblowers from
their victimization and if the term itself isn't clear than the whole Act looses all
meaning.
5. Further more although the Act makes a provision for Anonymous Disclosures
,the Act doesn't discuss complete anonymous disclosures. The Competent
Authority formed under the Act doesn't mention complete anonymous disclosure.
The Act makes provision for revealing the identity of the Whistleblower. If this is
often done there are chances of the whistleblower being victimized. The
researcher feels that what are often wiped out this case is that a separate Whistle
Blower Protection Agency are often formed under the WhistleBlower Protection
Rules so on provide protection to Whistleblowers by assessing the danger which
the whistleblower is vulnerable to by to by making the disclosure.
6. The Act should be amended to incorporate and make use of the Lokpal (National
level apex anti‐corruption and Grievance Redress agency) which will be
established under the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013 as the Lokpal would
generally handle the same cases of corruption as would be handled by the
Competent Authority and hence making the Lokpal and the Lokayukta the
competent authority would solve the problem of dual organizations doing the
same work.
7. The Lokpal & Lokayukta Act, 2013 and the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011
could be harmonized so as to bring about a smooth flow in to the protection of
people making public spirited disclosures.
8. The meaning and Definition of ‘Competent Authority’ should be amended so as
to make the ambit of the term wide and bring into its purview many
agencies/organizations which are currently not included like the Lower Judiciary.
9. The Act should provide for a Protection Agency which would not only protect
whistleblowers but would also encourage new emerging whistleblowers and
guide them in to making public disclosures in a correct manner.
10. The Act should also incorporate and bring into its ambit protection to a separate
kind of Whistleblowers. The People and witnesses who come up to corroborate
the disclosure made by the Whistleblower during the stage of inquiry should be
provided with protection so that the offenders are not left scot free due to non
proving of the disclosure made by the Whistleblower.
11. The State should find a way to deal with frivolous complaints, maybe by
developing an efficient method to screen complaints. Pullling the provision away
for anonymous complaint complicates the process of whistle blowing and
discourages people from coming forward with their complaints.

 Conclusion
 Although the Act has yet to come in force by a notification of the Central
Government in the Official Gazette the provisions of the Act on the bare perusal of
the Act seem inadequate and thus there are chances that the zeal of the
Whistleblowers to make disclosure will be affected.
It has to be seen that the Act does not become a Paper tiger like the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and proper rules should be formulated and
passed to give better effect and force to the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2011