Whistle-blowing is an old concept but relatively new term.

There have always been

informers or snitches who reveal information to enrich them or to get back at others.
The term whistle-blower was first applied to government employees who go public
with complaints of corruption or mismanagement in the public or government
organizations. It is now used in connection with similar activities in the private business
sector as well. usiness history is replete with the cases of corruption and
mismanagement and! in turn! cases of whistle blowing. "or e#ample! the three
whistleblowers-
all women and the Time $agazine%s &'ersons of the (ear )**)% + ,herron Walkin
-who warned .nron%s accounting scandals/! 0oleen 1owley -who pointed out how the
bureau had ignored important clues to the ,eptember 22 bombing of the World Trade
0entre/! and 0ynthia 0ooper -who alerted the World0om board about accounting
irregularities/ are well known whistle-blowers world over.
,atyendra 3ubey is one nationally known whistle-blower in India. The whistle-
blowers take great personal risks and most of them! like above four! lose their lives.
The fact remains that the whistleblowers% courage makes invaluable contribution to the
good of the society.
4onetheless! while there are plethora of cases of corruptions and mismanagement
prevalent every here and there! there are only a few whistle-blowers. 5s such! some
obvious 6uestions crop up in the mind are7 -i/ Is whistle blowing ethical8 -ii/ Why do
people not blow whistle informing about corruptions rampant in many of the
organizations8 -iii/ 5re whistle blowers safe and protected8 -iv/ 9ow to protect the
whistle blowers8 The present paper attempts to address to these issues.
Whistle-blowing is an old concept but relatively new term. 9istory is witness that there
has always been informers! or snitches! who reveal inside information to others.
usiness world is not e#ception to it. It will not be less than correct to mention that
unethical practices! or say! wrongdoings in business and whistle-blowing have been
coeval since long time. :nly the e#tent and nature of the two have changed over the
period. 5long with increase in unethical business practices! instances of whistle-
blowing are also on increase though not on pari passu. 5s regards what is whistle-
blowing! like other ethical driven human behaviour! it has also been understood and
defined differently by different people! practioners! and ethicists. "or some! whistle-
blowing may mean the disclosure of wrong doings! for some others protest against
unethical doings! and for some yet others reporting untoward things to others.
It%s a clich; to mention that there have been plethora of misconducts!
wrongdoings! and unethical practices in business! yet there have been only a few
whistleblowers! but unfortunately that is the case. The reason is not difficult to seek.
0ases of whistle-blowing are so wrenching precisely because they involve very sharp
and strong conflicts and serious implications. usiness history bears evidences to
confirm that whistle-blowers often pay a high price in many forms + from poor
evaluation and demotion to dismissal to loss of life -3alal )**</. =iven such backdrop!
then! certain obvious but ve#ing 6uestions arise7 ,hould employees violate their
obligation to be loyal
to their employer8 Is disclosing the confidential matters of one%s organization to
outsiders ethical8 ,hould people be really encouraged to blow the whistle8 Is the
whistle-blowing
the only way to correct wrongdoingsin business8 5re there not other better ways to
correct the wrongdoings without re6uiring employees to make high! of course! heroic
personal sacrifices8 ,hould the whistle-blower be protected8 9ow can this best be
done8
The present paper makes a presumptuous attempt to address to all these 6uestions. We
shall begin with defining the term &whistle-blowing.%
WHAT IS WHISTLE-BLOWING?
The term whistle-blowing probably arises by analogy with the referee or umpire who
draws public attention to a foul in a game by blowing a whistle! as in soccer. ,ome
trace out its emergence from the practice of .nglish obbies who would blow their
whistle when they noticed the commission of a crime. The blowing of the whistle
would alert
both law enforcement officers and the general public of danger. In simple words!
whistle blowing is an act by a member or former member of an organization to disclose
wrongdoing in or by the organization. >et us also consider some important definitions
of
whistle-blowing.
5ccording to oatright -)**<72*?/! Whistle-blowing is the release of information by a
member or former member of an organization that is evidence of illegal and@or immoral
conduct in the organization that is not in the public interest.
,ekhar -)**)72AB/ defines whistle-blowing as an attempt by an employee or a former
employee of an organizationto disclose what he proclaims to be a wrongdoing in
or by that organization.
5ccording to Coehn -)**<7?DEA/! Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee informs
the public of inappropriate activities going on inside the organization.
1. $. =reen -2BB?7 2?D-2?E/ has given a simpler definition of whistle-blowing7 5
whistle-blower is an employee who! perceiving an organizational 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.
0onsidering the above definitions together! whistle-blowing can now be defined in a
long-winded manner as the voluntarily disclosure of non-public information! as a moral
protest by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels
of
communications to outsiders who can correct the wrongdoing opposed to the public
interest.
"ollowing are some salient characteristics to observe in above definitions of whistle
blowing7
1. There must be real information to release to be called
whistle-blowing.
That is merely to dissent publicly with an employer without the real information is not
in itself to blow the whistle. Whistle-blowing necessarily involves the release of
misdemeanor to the public. Thus! whistle-blowing is different from sounding the alarm
in
the sense that the former releases the information that the public do not know because it
has been kept secret! while the latter tries to get people alarmed about the facts that are
already known to the public.
2. The information is an evidence of wrongdoing on the part
of organization.
The matters that cause harm to the public interest usually fall under the purview of
whistle-blowing. Thus! the matters that merely influence the course of action but are
not contrary to the public interest are not commonly treated as &whistle-blowing.%
3. Whistle must be blown with moral motive to correct some
wrongdoing.
5t times! members of an organization may go public for all sorts of reasons. Therefore!
information released to public with a motive to take revenge does not constitute whistle
blowing.
4. Whistle against wrongdoing of an organization can be
blown only by its member or former member.
Information about wrongdoings informed or snitched by
an internal member of an organization is called whistle-blowing. It! then! means
blowing whistle about wrongdoings of an organization by outsiders like a Fournalist!
social activitist! political leader! etc. is not considered whistle-blowing. The reason is
that such informers have incriminating information about the organizational
wrongdoings and
no obligation prevents them from making it public. ut! the situation is different for
employees who! of course! are aware of wrongdoings in their organizations! but! at the
same time! they also have obligations to their organizations. That is employees are
e#pected to work as per pre-determined and agreed directives! go through the defined
procedures! and act in manner that benefits the organization. Whistle-blowing is! thus!
an action that takes place within an organization.
5. It must be clear to whom the whistle regarding
wrongdoing is to be blown.
:nly then a desired change or correction can be brought about. $erely revealing
information about wrongdoing to an outside party does not necessarily constitute
whistle blowing but simply an instance of ordinary snitching.
6. The information about the wrongdoing in the
organization must be released outside through normal
channels of communication prescribed by the organization.
In many organizations! an established procedure is to be followed by the employees to
report instances of wrongdoings to their immediate superiors or to the designated
officials! like ombudsman in the >ife Insurance 0orporation of India. 9owever!
following an established procedure for reporting wrongdoings is not called &Whistle-
blowing.% Though! whistle-blowing does not necessarily involve going public and
releasing wrongdoing outside the organization! going public is found often effective
because the information ultimately reaches the appropriate authorities who can 0orrect
the wrongdoing.
7. Information about wrongdoing must be released
voluntarily.
9owever! there has not been clear distinction between information released voluntarily
and forced
>egally or when subpoenaed constitute whistle-blowing or not.
'hilosopher 4orman owie -2BG*/ contends that the following characteristics Fustify
the whistle-blowing7
2. It is done based on an appropriate moral motive.
). The individual has e#hausted all internal channels of dissent.
<. The individual%s belief regarding the inappropriate conduct is based on evidence that
would persuade a responsible person.
?. The individual has carefully analysed the situation to determine the serious nature of
the violation! the immediacy of the violation.
D. The individual%s action is commensurate with responsibility for avoiding and @ or
e#posing moral violation.
TYPES OF WHISTLE-BLOWING
3epending on who and whom the wrongdoing is disclosed! researchers have
classified whistle-blowing into several types -Hames 2BB</. These are7
Internal: When the whistle-blower reports the wrongdoing to the officials at higher
position in the organization! it is called &internal whistle-blowing.% In this A case! the
very purpose of whistle is to get the wrongdoings investigated as per the procedures of
the organization in this regard. The usual subFects of internal whistle-blowing are
disloyalty! improper conduct! indiscipline! insubordination!
disobedience! etc.
External7 Where the wrongdoings are reported to the people outside the organization
like media! public interest groups or enforcement agencies! it is called &e#ternal
whistle-blowing. %While some favour outside whistle blowing! others oppose on the
ground of morality and loyalty on the part of the employee toward his@her organization.
Alumni: When the whistle-blowing is done by the former employee of the
organization! it is called &alumni whistle-blowing.%
Open: When the identity of the whistle-blower is revealed! it is called &open whistle-
blowing.%
Anonymous: When the identity of the whistle-blower is not revealed! it is called
&anonymous whistle-blowing.%
Personal7 Where the organizational wrongdoings are to harm one personally!
disclosing such wrongdoings is called &personal whistle-blowing.% Though this is not
Fustified morally! it is desirable only when there is danger to one%s freedom or dignity
or esteem.
Impersonal: When the wrongdoing is to harm others! it is called &impersonal whistle-
blowing.%
Government7 Where a disclosure is made about wrongdoings or unethical practices
adopted by the officials of the =overnment! it is called &government whistle- blowing.%
Corporate7 When a disclosure is made about the wrongdoings in a business
corporation! it is called &corporate whistle-blowing..
CAUSES OF WHISTLE-BLOWING
e that as it may be! whistle-blowing by disclosing wrongdoings of an
organization to outsiders causes harm of one type or other to the organization. 9ence!
whistle-blowing is not welcome. This! then! means that organizations need to avoid
whistle-blowing to take place. It is always better for an organization to be proactive
than
reactive in the matters of whistle-blowing. ecause! prevention is cheaper and better
than cure. :ne way to be proactive in this regard is to have the knowledge about what
actually causes whistle-blowing in an organization. 1esearchers -4ader et.al. 2BA) and
3andekar
2BB</ have listed the following as the usual causes of whistle-blowing in organizations7
2. $isuse of official funds for private purposes.
). :fficial powers used for private gain.
<. 3iscrimination by age! race! or se#.
?. 0orruption.
D. 3umping of industrial pollutants causing harm to public.
E. 3eceptive advertising.
A. 4on-enforcement of laws.
G. 5dulteration.
B. ,e#ual harassment.
2*. $onopolist price-rigging.
22. Ise of official funds for political campaign. In case of India! items )! ?! B and 22
are the more common causes of whistle-blowing.
WHETHER OR NOT WHISTLE-BLOWING?
Whistle-blowing is essentially an ethical work. 9ence! it involves both costs for some
and benefits for other. esides! given the principle of loyal agency and maintaining
confidentiality in the matters of organization by the agent! i.e. employee! on the one
hand! and internally prescribed procedure! wherever e#ists! to deal with wrongdoings in
the organization! on the other! underline the need for and necessity of whistle-blowing
in the organization. 5s such! there has been a debate! however! inconclusive on whether
or whistle-blowing. It is hoped that an e#amination of arguments against and
Fustifications in favour of whistle-blowing will help us make an opinion whether
whistle-blowing should take place in the organization or not. The same follows in the
subse6uent paragraphs.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST WHISTLE-BLOWING
=iven the great harm whistle-blowing does and can cause to both individual! i.e.
whistle-blower and organization! it is decried by some. They oppose whistle-blowing
mainly on the grounds of loyalty and confidentiality. 5ccording to them! as per the >aw
of 5gency! an employee is the agent of his@her employer @ organization. Who is an
agent8
5ccording to one e#pert on the subFect -'owell 2BED7 A/! an agent is a person who is
authorized to act for a person -called &principal%/ and has agreed so to act! and who has
power to affect the legal relations of his principal with a third party. In practice! people
hire agents to carry out the tasks that the principal are either not willing or able to carry
out by themselves. "or e#ample! we hire a lawyer under a contract to represent
ourselves in legal matters where we lack the re6uired e#pertise to present our matter
effectively.
The agent is e#pected to act as the principal would himself @ herself. The agent is paid
-i.e. fee/ for the task done by him for principal. The main obligation of an agent is to act
in the interest of the principal.
In the similar vein! an employee is also an agent of his @ her organization employer.
Therefore! an employee as an agent has an obligation to work for the benefit of his @ her
employer as per directions by protecting the confidential information. In nutshell! the
employee has to work Fust like a loyal agent. ,ince whistle-blowing violates the law of
agency! i.e.! loyalty! hence it is condemned. Whistle-blowing by violating the law of
agency seems to some as disloyalty! i.e., to bite the hand that feeds one. 9ere is a
vigorous condemnation of whistle-blowing by Hames 1oche! the former 0hairman of
the oard of =eneral $otors 0orporation7
,ince critics are now busy eroding another support of free enterprises the loyalty of a
management team! with its unifying valued co-operation.
,ome of the enemies of business now encourage an employee to be
disloyal to the enterprise. They want to create suspicion and disharmony and pry into
the proprietary interests of the business. This may be whistle-blowing J but it is
another tactic of spreading disunity J. Whistle-blowing is not courageous and not
deserving of gratitude and protectionK it is corrosive and impermissible -1oche 2BA27
??D/.
5 more temperate statement of typical condemnation of whistle-blowing along the
same lines of 1oche comes from ,issela ok as 6uoted by oatright -)**<7 2*E- 2*A/.
That is7
"urthermore! the whistle-blower hopes to stop the game! but since he is neither referee
nor coach! his act is seen as a violation of loyalty. In holding his position! he has
assumed certain obligations to his colleagues and clients. 9e may even have subscribed
to a loyalty oath or a promise of confidentiality. >oyalty to colleagues and clients
comes to be pitted against loyalty to the public interest! to those who may be inFured
unless the revelation is made.
$ilton "riedman -2BE)72<</ has made a manager%s obligation to the stockholders! i.e.
owners imperiously clear. 9e says! In a free-enterprise! private property system! a
corporate e#ecutive is an employee of the owners of the business. 9e has direct
responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in
accordance with their desires! which generally will be to make as much money as
possible while confirming to the basic rules of the society! both those embodied in law
and those embodied in ethical custom.
JUSTIFICATIONS IN FAVOUR OF WHISTLE-
BLOWING
It is important to mention that the supporters of whistle-blowing do not disagree with
the law of agency! i.e.! the obligation of whistle-blower toward his @ her organization.
They also admit that the employees have obligation of loyalty toward their
organization! but the obligation is not without limitation. The limitation is to obey all
reasonable directives of the principal! i.e. employer-organization. "or e#ample! an
employee is hired as an agent with a purpose to sell life insurance policies on
commission. Then! it would be ludicrous to assume that the agent has also committed
himself to washing dogs! cleaning vehicles! or doing anything else that happened to
give his principal pleasure. The supporters of whistle-blowing also maintain that
whistle blowing is not something to be done without ade6uate Fustification. ut at the
same time! it is not something that can never be Fustified. The maFor Fustification
forwarded in favor of whistle blower is that he @ she has obligation not only toward the
employer organization! but to the society as well. They! therefore! view that if the act of
whistle blower brings more benefit to the society at large than to for the organization by
not blowing the whistle against its wrongdoings! whistle-blowing is well Fustified.
3uska -2BB*/ e#presses his disagreement with the opponents of whistle-blowing in the
same vein in these words7 Isn%t time it to stop viewing corporate machinations as
games. The activities not only affect the players but everyone J the appeal to loyalty
though understandable is misleadingK in the moral sphere competition is not the
prevailing virtue J. Whistle-blowing is not only permissible but e#pected when
company is harming society. The issue is not of disloyalty to the company! but of
whether the whistle-blower has an obligation o society and if blowing the whistle will
bring retaliation.
The condemnation of whistle-blowing at the personal! often high! cost of the whistle-
blower is also not Fustified. If the whistle-blower follows the principle of
universal ethic! the last &deontological% stage of one%s moral development -Cohelberg
2BG2/! it is good even at one%s personal sacrifice. This is also Fustifiable based on the
utilitarian approach of ethics! i.e. the greatest good for greatest number. 0hakraborty
-2BGE/ also in the similar vein! Fustifies and supports whistle-blowing even at the high
self-sacrifice of whistle-blower. 9e says whistle-blowing is Fustifiable in business
where individuals in organization undertake intense effort at great deprivation to
themselves by yielding immense social benefits. 9e goes to cite e#emplary cases of
self-sacrifice.
(ellapragada 1ao could never have given the world 5ureomycon if he had not had the
willingness to sacrifice. The Indian chemist '. 0. 1oy lived an austere life but
developed the basic pharmaceutical and chemical industry in India.
To conclude! the maFor argument of loyalty of an employee given against whistle
blowing does not prove that whistle-blowing can never be Fustified. There is no denying
the fact that employees as agents have obligations toward their principals! but at the
same time they do also have limits. lowing whistle against the violation of the law of
agency by the principal is! therefore! Fustifiable even at the great self-sacrifice of the
whistleblower.
9istory is replete with such Fustifications.
EVIDENCES OF WHISTLE-BLOWING:-
The term whistle-blowing is a relatively recent entry into the vocabulary of public and
corporate affairs! although the phenomenon itself is not new. :f late! whistle-blowing
has become common from government agencies to business corporations worldover.
There has been heroic whistle-blowers worldover. >et us recapitulate a few of the more
prominent whistle-blowers as illustrative ones.
Frank Serpico: 9e is the legendary e#-cop of the 4ew (ork 'olice 3epartment
-4('3/ whose story was the subFect of a best-selling book! and a film starring 5l
'acino
+ both titled Serpico. When he became a cop in 2BE*! payoffs! kickbacks and
protection rackets were rampant in 4('3. 1efusing to look the other way! ,erpico
complained to the 'olice 0ommissioner and the $ayor! but they ignored him.
"rustated! ,erpico revealed 4('3%s dirty laundry to the New York Times in 2BA2! after
which the cops as well as the criminals started gunning for him. $atters came to a head
when he was shot in the face during a raidK his colleagues did not come to his help.
,erpico 6uit 4('3 in 2BA) but 4('3 has become a more honest force since his time.
DR. STEPHEN BOLSIN: 9e is a former anesthetist at the I.C.%s ristol 1oyal
Infirmary -2BGG-BD/ who blew the whistle on a large number of unnecessary deaths of
children occurring during heart surgeries due to the incompetence of the hospital%s
surgeons. :stracised by other doctors! 3r. oslin was forced to emigrate to 5ustralia in
2BBD. ut his disclosure led to en6uiries by the =eneral $edical 0ouncil and the
=overnmentK the department from future practice of two surgeons and the hospital chief
in 2BGBK and also several far-reaching reforms in the 4ational 9ealth ,ervice -49,/. It
also acted as a catalyst for the enactment of the I.C.%s ublic !nterest "isclosure #ct of
2BBG.
Cynthia Cooper of WorldcomK Sherron Watkins of .nrons who e#posed corporate
financial scandals! and Coleen Rowley of the "I who later outlined the agency%s slow
action prior to the ,eptember 22! )**2 attacks. 5ll three women were selected by the
Time $agazine as its &'ersons of the (ear )**).% 5ll three lost their lives.
SATYENDRA KUMAR DUBEY: ,atyendra Cumar 3ubey was a <2-year-old
IITCanpur civil engineering graduate working with the 4ational 9ighways 5uthority
of India -495I/ and assigned to former 'rime $inister LaFpayee%s pet and ambitious
proFect! the =olden Muadrilateral! to connect the four corners of India. 9e was posted at
Coderma! Hharkhand. :n discovering rampant corruption and poor implementation of
work in the section where he had been posted! 3ubey wrote to the 'rime $inister
e#posing the irregularities. In the letter! received by the 'rime $inister%s :ffice -'$:/
on 22 4ovember! )**)! he had named some companies. "earing retribution! he had
re6uested that his name be kept as secret.
ut the '$: officials circulated his letter along with details of his identity among the
bureaucracy. The number of notings on the file bears witness to this -The !ndian
$%press! <* 4ovember! )**</. While the file was making rounds! not one official
thought about the threat 3ubey was being e#posed to. Why officials in the '$: did not
heed . 3ubey%s re6uest for anonymity is not known. ut Fust over a year later! on )A
4ovember! )**<! he was murdered in =aya! ihar.
SHANMUGAM MANUNATH: ,. $unFunath! a )A-year-old II$->ucknow graduate
working as a sales officer with Indian :il 0orporation paid with his life for attempting
to ensure that people did not get adulterated fuel. $unFunath had reportedly started
proceedings against the owner of $ittal 5utomobiles in =ola =orakhnath in the state of
Ittar 'radesh! after the outlet was found committing mass irregularities in supply of
fuel.
$unFunath%s killing in 4ovember )**D is another case of silencing a whistleblower in a
large scam of petrol adulteration. 9e had unearthed gross irregularities being
committed
in supply of petrol at the filling station during surprise inspection in ,eptember and
recommended strict penal action against the owner.
ATUL TIRODKAR: 5tul Tirodkar was a man who! during the Cetan 'arekh scam of
)**2! e#posed how the ombay ,tock .#change%s high profile 'resident! 5nand 1athi!
had been assessing sensitive market information from the surveillance department. The
,. immediately suspended him and made enormous efforts to terminate his services.
The ,. fabricated charges against him. They accused him of dereliction of duty!
absenteeism and even having links with the underworld. These fabricated charges were
leaked to 040 and played every hour as an e#clusive report. >ater an independent
en6uiry by a single Fudge was instituted.
The single-Fudge en6uiry e#onerated him completely. ut some influential ,.
directors again prevailed on the Fudge to give the e#change an e#it option by offering
him a honourable discharge with compensation. Then the &oint arliamentar'
(ommittee -H$0/ began to hear the matter and heard his testimony. ,tunningly enough!
$'s cutting across party lines supported him. They condemned Tirodkar%s suspension
in the strongest terms and asked that he be reinstated. Inlike other whistle-blowers as
mentioned earlier! Tirodkar%s story had a uni6ue happy ending.
WHISTLE-BLOWERS NEED PROTECTION
It is 6uite clear from the above anecdotes that whistle-blowers bear big costs in the
forms of demotion! punishment! suspension! retaliation! and eve forfeit to their lives for
the good of the society. This calls for protection to whistle blowers. The I.,. enacted
&)histle*blowing rotection #ct% way back in 2BGB -amended in 2BB?/ to protect the
federal employees and Sarbanes*+%le' #ct in )**) for granting legal protection to
whistle-blowers in publicly traded companies. The I.C. has enacted ublic !nterest
"isclosure #ct in 2BBG to protect its whistle-blowers. ,outh 5frica follows the IC
e#ample in providing protection to whistle-blowers in all organizations. y now! many
countries such as Inited ,tates! 5ustralia! 0anada! ,outh Corea! 1ussia! $e#ico! and
more have already enacted whistle-blowers protection legislation to protect them.
5s regards protection to whistle-blowers in India! it has so far no legislative protection
to the whistle-blowers. The e#isting provisions in the form of vigilance officer and
ombudsman do not seem effective in protecting whistle-blowers. ut! India needs more
than other countries! the whistle-blowing protection act without delay. This need for
strong protection to whistle-blowers was also echoed by the
Nara'ana ,urth' (ommittee on (orporate -o.ernance set up by the ,ecurities and
.#change oard of India -,.I/. India made attempts as well but failed to make legal
protection available to the whistle-blowers. &ublic !nterest "isclosure /rotection of
!nformers0 ill -'I3/% to provide protection to whistle-blowers was mooted at the
same time when the re.ention of Terrorism #ct /':T5/ was mooted. oth ':T5 and
'I3 were drafted by the same man at the same time. ':T5 was enacted! but 'I3
went to the usual dusty shelf for political reasons. (es! it the 'I3 had been made into
law! ,atyendra 3ubey might still have been alive today.
ased on the e#periences of other countries! a few general principles are suggested to
provide protection to whistle-blowers in India.
With the consent of the re6uired number of state governments! 'arliament
should try to enact a single 5ct for all employees working in all kinds of
organizations.
The +fficial Secrets #ct should be overridden to provide for a public interest
defence and the &gagging clauses in employment or severance contracts should
be declared void in respect of public interest disclosures.
What constitute public interest disclosure need to be clearly defined8
:nly the genuine and reasonable whistle-blowers must be protected. Those
caught making anonymous or pseudonymous leaks should not be protected.
There should be fast track mechanism for adFudication of cases on the lines of
the &Sarbanes*+%le' #ct 1221 of I.,.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
There is no denying the fact that whistle-blowers do a great service to the society at
their great risk and cost! even at the loss of life. 9ence! whistle-blowers need to be
protected to ensure the good governance of organizations. The fact is that while trying
to protect whistle-blowers! we are actually trying to protect ourselves. $any employees
may be afraid to speak out even when legal protection e#ists. ut! its very e#istence
will deter government and corporate wrongdoings to a considerable e#tent and! in turn!
will ensure good governance. 5s the type of scenario e#ists today in India! the chances
of enacting legislation for protection to whistle-blowers seems remote. ut! given the
growing corporate and government scandals in the country! the need for legal
protection to whistle-blowers is gathering momentum day-by-day. It seems Fust a
matter of time before we shift from our present culture of zero tolerance of whistle-
blowing to a culture of zero tolerance of whistle-blower retaliation. ,ooner is obviously
welcome.