ABSTRACT

A whistle blower is an individual who exposes information with regard to any misconduct,
wrongdoing, or any malpractice within an organisation. Whistleblowing is controversial as
there is a balance which has to be maintained by the individual between loyalty to the
organisation and exposing the malpractices of the organisation. A whistle blower is to RTI
what mitochondria is to human cell. Ever since the RTI act came into effect in the year 2005,
a policy with regard to protection of whistle blowers was made in 2011 and was passed by
the Parliament only in 2014 which is yet to be enforced. The Whistle Blower Protection Act,
2011 replaces the government’s resolution which empowered Central Vigilance Commission
to take action upon the complaints of whistle blowers. The objective of the Right to
Information Act was to ensure transparency. The RTI Act has successfully managed to create
a silent movement among the citizens with regard to seeking transparency and accountability.
The task of being a whistle blower is perplexing to understand. When one assigns to be a
whistle blower, they put on stake their job, their own and their family members’ life. In many
cases as that of Shehla Masood, Sanmughan Manjunath and Bhupendra Vira, the whistle
blowers had to succumb to their miseries. Nothing considerable has been enforced till date in
order to protect the whistle blowers form getting victimised. The main reason behind this is
that the RTI Act has not been supplemented along with other necessary initiatives like
infrastructure and staff for running information commissions, maintenance of files in
government offices. The Whistle Blower Protection Act being the important most among all
is still in the herd of being sanctioned. The crux of the research paper follows up with
analysing the Whistle Blower Act which has been in Parliament and what are the
shortcomings of the Act and also the miseries faced by the whistle blowers have also been
dealt with in the research paper.

Key Words: Whistle blower; Malpractice; Victimisation; Protection; Transparency;

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 CASES

1. Durga Hotel Complex v. RBI: (2007) 5 SCC 120.

 STATUTES

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005

2. The Freedom of Information Act, 2002
3. Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011
4. Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015

 REPORTS

1. Law Commission of India’s 179th Report

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.no TITLE Page

No.

1. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.
2. Chapter 2: Literature Review 3.
3. Chapter 3: Research Objectives, Questions and Methodology 4.
3.1. Research Objectives
3.2. Research Questions
3.3. Research Methodology
4. Chapter 4: Research Findings 6.
4.1 Overview of RTI Rules, 2017
4.2. Whistle Blowers in India
4.3. Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011
4.4. Whistle Blowers (Amendment) Bill, 2015
5. Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 14.
6. Chapter 6: References 15.
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Right to Information is a tool vested with the citizens in order to increase transparency
and accountability in the governance of the country. As the preamble of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 states, this is “an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public
authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”1

The movement of Right to Information in India first began in the state of Rajasthan, wherein
in 1990s, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan, through means of public hearings, agitations
and protests, succeeded in getting access to the muster rolls, bills and vouchers which
exposed wide-scale corruption in disbursing wages to labourers. 2 This in turn, led to the
passage of the Right to Information bill by the Rajasthan State legislature in May, 2000.
Though the provisions relating to penalty, appellate authority and discretionary powers vested
with the bureaucrats were controversial, it was nevertheless a start in entrusting the citizens
with the right to know. The state of Tamil Nadu & Goa had enacted laws relating to the right
to information in 1997.

A law in the National context was yet to come. In the May 1997, in the Chief Ministers’
Conference on Effective & Responsive Government, the need to enact a law with regard to
right to information was recognised unanimously.3 The recognition of the same led to
enactment of The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 4 . The objective of this bill was to
enable the citizens to have information on statutory basis. Efforts were made to have the act
in accordance with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Though the A. 19 of the Indian Constitution does not
explicitly make a mention of the word ‘information’, the Supreme Court, through the
interpretative process, has stated that the citizens definitely have a right to know. It is also to

1
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
2
Aruna Roy & Nikhil Dey, THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION: FACILITATING PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION AND STATE
ACCOUNTABILITY, http://www.cccindia.org.in/cs54b.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
3
V. Jwala Narsimha Rao, MODULE ON REFORMS INITIATIVES IN ADMINISTRATION,
http://persmin.gov.in/otraining/UNDPProject/undp_modules/Reform%20Initiatives%20in%20Admn%20N
%20DLM.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
4
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2002.

(1)
be stated that The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was never notified, hence it was non-
operational.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and
Justice, in March 2005 recommended repealing of the Freedom of Information Act, 2002
after which the Right to Information Bill of 2004 was enacted in June, 2005 incorporating
changes suggested by the National Advisory Council.5

Since its enactment, the RTI has proved to be a popular tool to seek information from the
government. According to a study6 conducted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
(CHRI), 1.75 crore RTI applications have been filed since 2005. The study also states that
this number could be higher as many authorities do not report their annual compliance. The
fact that so many applications have been filed reveals that the citizens have been at the
forefront to seek answerability from the government. It goes without saying that the citizens
have attempted to do the task of whistleblowing effectively.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

5
J. Venkatesan, REPEAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RECOMMENDED, THE HINDU,
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/03/23/stories/2005032305841200.htm (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
6
Seema Chaudhary et al., STATE OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS AND THE USE OF RTI LAWS IN INDIA HUMAN
RIGHTS INITIATIVE, http://humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/rti/ICs-RapidStudy-finalreport-NDelhi-
ATITeam-Jun15.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

(2)
The literature that was used in formulating this research paper was helpful, not just in factual
learning but also drawing interpretations. The research was done from various books, articles
and journals which were available online and also various news articles were utilized for a
better understanding of the subject of “RTI and Protection of Whistle Blowers”

The book, Administrative Law by I.P. Massey helped in understanding the system of
Ombudsman and its history in a detailed manner. As part of the historical context, it discusses
the introduction to the system, and other statutes pertaining to maladministration; it addresses
the views of various members of the Constituent Assembly, and the various developments of
the system of Lok Adalats from the inception.

Another book, The Right to Information in India by Sudhir Naib gave a clear overview about
the Right to Information and its current position in India. Access to information is a very
important part for any true democracy to function properly. The right to information of the
Indian citizen is guaranteed by Indian Constitution and indirectly present in the right to the
freedom of speech and expression. This book presents a clear introduction to the evolution of
the act and various privileges which are bestowed to the citizens of the country, the duties of
information suppliers and other essential knowledge by bringing together the major aspects of
RTI Act, 2005.
Then for further research various articles over the internet were referred such as news articles
available on Times of India, The Telegraph and Indian Express which provided information
about various Whistle Blowers who were a part of the system and did notable work. They
also provided knowledge about the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 and about the
current affairs associated with it.

The article written by various students under the banner of Human Rights Initiative was also
very helpful in understanding the rules of RTI and helped in attaining a thorough research.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES, QUESTIONS AND

METHODOLOGY
(3)
 3.1: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of the research extends to all the information about Right to Information and
prospects of protection of whistle blowers in India. The researchers will focus on the law and
its application and implementation in this context. The problems of protection of whistle
blowers is a complex issue that has to be seen not just from a moral perspective but has to be
acted upon which has become the need of the hour. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act,
2011 is a successful initiative as its implementation will bring a ray of hope to rescue the
whistle blowers from the ambit of danger which is faced after disclosure of corruptness or
violative practices of an organisation. Apart from this there are several other reasons which
are discussed at length in the course of the paper. There is also an argument made about the
impacts of disclosing such information on the lives of the whistle blowers which is discussed
on National as well as International Level. Although the research in this particular area
indicates that there are reforms and changes that need to be brought in. The final result brings
about the shortcomings of the legislation and further gives the improvements which shall be
done.

3.2: RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions which have been explored in order to achieve the research objectives
are as following:

1. What is the system of Ombudsman and how has it developed through the span of time in
India?
2. How has the concept of Whistle Blowers legislation evolved in India?
3. Are we on the right constitutional path to protect the lives of the whistle blowers and what
can be the possible outcome consequences would these legislations have?
4. What are the shortcomings of the RTI Rules which have been drafted in 2017?

3.3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology, in general terminology refers to the science of how research is

processed. It is nothing but a systematic approach to logically solve a problem.

(4)
Through the course of this paper, the authors have mainly adopted qualitative methods to the
limit of acts and statutes namely, The Freedom of Information Act, 2002, The Right to
Information Act, 2005, Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011 and Whistle Blower Protection
(Amendment) Bill, 2015.

In addition to the above references have also been drawn from the one hundred and seventy
ninth report of the Law Commission of India.

(5)
 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS

The organisations or system of administration has to be ultimately responsive towards the

general public in all aspects of information. Since the inception of the administrative
institutions, it has been witnessed that with time they have becoming a part of the lives of
every individual in different ways from provision of basic amenities to formulating policies.
These activities directly or indirectly bring an impact on the lives of every person. But with
uprising number of these institutions, it is very evident that the system is prone to
malpractices and chances of administrative faults which brings a need for efficacious system.
The search for such system arose the idea of “Ombudsman” which in terms of utility means a
“watchdog of the administration” or “the protector of the little man”.

This institution started developing in Sweden in 1809 and soon became a principle
commodity not only for this country but all around the world. This institution was the first
step taken towards the transparency and accountability of government as well as non-
government institutions.

An ombudsman or his equivalent has become an important part of the modern government’s
mechanism. The chances of friction between a common man and the government has
multiplied manifold.

Conceptually, an ombudsman is only a non-adversarial adjudicator of disputes. He serves as

an alternative to the adversary system for resolving disputes, especially between citizens and
government agencies. He is an independent and non-partisan officer who deals with the
specific complaints from the public against administrative injustice and maladministration.
Certainly, an adversarial adjudication by courts necessarily stands on a higher plane than a
decision by the ombudsman. Therefore, if a matter is pending before a court, ombudsman
cannot exercise jurisdiction.7

The concept of Ombudsman has evolved in different countries in a different aspect where
either they have evolved the system of ombudsman directly or have brought into their own
establishment of system. All these systems of ombudsman are in essence based on the same
structure and idea but deviate only in very fine aspects relating to the changes in the different

7
Durga Hotel Complex v. RBI, (2007) 5 SCC 120.

(6)
political and historical systems of the respective nations, whether already developed or in the
phase of development.

But there is a notion that there will be an individual who will report or give information about
such maladministration which gives rise to the term whistle blower. Whistle blowers have
become a part of this system since the inception of ombudsman system. Whistle blower is a
person or an entity who produces a protected disclosure about improper or illegal activities.
Whistle blower can be anyone such as employees, applicants for employment, vendors,
contactors, customers or general public.

4.1 WHISTLE BLOWERS IN INDIA:

In the year 1947, India attained freedom from the hands of the British Empire. It was
bestowed with colossal tasks to deal with such as coping with problems such as the Second
World War, economic crises and famines to name a few. In order to cope up with all these
issues, there emerged a requirement of a competent administrative set up which was given
huge amount of power during that time. Bestowing huge amount of powers also lead to
maladministration and corruption. India was no exception and there was a lot of
administrative crises which occurred after the Second World War and there were numerous
cases of maladministration and corruption surfacing during this period.

In the year 1966, a commission was set up known as the Administrative Reforms
Commission and there was a recommendation from this commission that an institution
similar to that of the ombudsman is necessary in India and in pursuance of this a bill was
forwarded in the Lok Sabha in the year 1968 which was eventually passed in the year 1969.
Since the governments have yielded so much power that can lead to its abuse, it eventually
leads to the advent of the ombudsman in India. This system of ombudsman led to the rise of
whistle blowers in India. But there has been existing threat to the lives of these individuals.
Not only these, but the lives of their family members are also endangered. It becomes a duty
of the government to provide protection to such persons.

The act of protecting whistle blowers gains even more significance, especially in Indian
context as the revelations usually made by the whistle blowers through their RTI applications
or through other means unearths huge financial irregularities. The likes of Satyendra Dubey
and Shanmugam Manjunath were assassinated for unearthing irregularities at their respective

(7)
workplaces.8 Talking about whistle blowers who have faced harassment, assault, torture, were
assassinated or were even forced to kill themselves after they exposed massive irregularities,
the list9 is long.

It is evident that not everyone is okay with the act of whistleblowing and hence the whistle
blowers face the wrath. The question that now arises is whether or not there is a law to
protect the whistle blowers?

4.2 WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011

The law to protect whistle blowers was brought in through the Whistle Blowers Protection
Act, 201110. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, as its preamble says is “an act to
establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of
corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion against any public servant
and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards
against victimisation of the person making such complaint and for matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto”.

The law has provisions with regard to who will be considered as a whistle blower and it
includes any individual or even an NGO. In S. 11 (1), provisions with regard to safeguards
against victimisation to any person or public servant have been provided but the word
‘victimisation’ has nowhere been defined in the act. The law also included a provision, in
S.13 with regard to concealment of the whistle blower’s identity unless and until it becomes
necessary to reveal the identity by virtue of a court order. It also states in S. 16 that
whosoever discloses the identity of the whistle blower, either negligently or with a mala-fide

8
Leher Kala, BLAME GAME, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (2018), http://indianexpress.com/article/india/indian-
railways-accident-safety-complaints-whistleblower-blame-game-4-5060048/ (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
9
TNN, 3 YOUTHS OSTRACISED FOR RTI EXPOSE, TIMES OF INDIA (2011),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/3-youths-ostracised-for-RTI-
expose/articleshow/9559059.cms?referral=PM (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
RTI activist attacked in Rajasthan, INDIAN EXPRESS (2012),
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2012/feb/09/rti-activist-attacked-in-rajasthan-338555.html (last
visited Mar 1, 2018).
TNN, DENIED INFO, RTI ACTIVIST IMMOLATES SELF IN GUJARAT  THE TIMES OF INDIA (2011),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Denied-info-RTI-activist-immolates-self-in-
Gujarat/articleshow/7543457.cms?referral=PM (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
Rasheed Kidwaj, RTI CRUSADER STABBED TO DEATH, THE TELEGRAPH,
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170927/jsp/nation/story_175223.jsp (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
10
WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011

(8)
intent shall be punishable for imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and also to
fine which may extend up to rupees fifty thousand.

While a law for the protection of whistle blowers was welcomed by the civil society, it does
have certain shortcomings. The act fails to spread its ambit to the private sector and has
limited itself only to the public sector. There are no provisions in the act with regard to
encouraging whistle blowing by any certain means of giving any incentive to whistle
blowers. Clause 6 of section 4 states that no action will be taken on a complain that is made
anonymously. This is a subject matter of concern as in a given case, the whistle blower might
not want to disclose his/her identity due to certain reasons. This way a complaint which
requires action will go wasted. S.5 of the act relates to inquiry regarding the complaint made.
In no way does this section give any powers to the Competent Authority which is the State or
Central Vigilance Commission to prosecute but it can only recommend action. In other
words, it is being made a toothless tiger.

Furthermore, what constitutes as a disclosure is something that has been made narrow. The
S.2 (d) defines ‘disclosure’ as under:

“(i) an attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988;

(ii) wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable
loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant
or to any third party;

(iii) attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant,

made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant
and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4;”

It completely excludes subject matters such as mal-administration which were a part of the
Law Commission of India’s one hundred and seventy ninth (179 th) report11 on Public interest
disclosure and protection of informers.

What is worrisome here is the fact that even after being passed by both the houses of the
Parliament and receiving the assent of the President, this law is yet to be notified. In a written

11
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA’S 179th REPORT, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/179rptp1.pdf
(last visited Mar. 1, 2018).

(9)
reply12 to MP, D. Raja, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Dr.
Jitendra Singh had stated that a few ‘crucial’ amendments were to be added & hence the bill
has not been notified yet. According to the Minister, the ‘crucial’ amendments pertain to
safeguarding against disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the
State, etc.

4.3. WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015

The ‘crucial’ amendments as stated above and as mentioned by Minister, Jitendra Singh have
been said to be incorporated in the Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 201513.
The bill, as stated in the objects and reasons has been brought in order to “incorporate
necessary safeguards against disclosures which may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and
integrity of the country, security of the State, etc”. The amendment to Section 4 of the act 14,
disallows disclosure of information on ten grounds to name a few, information which will
affect the sovereignty and integrity of the State, Security of state, information which may
constitute contempt of court & information which would cause breach of privilege of
Parliament and State Legislature.

Now, by adding such a long list of information that cannot be disclosed, the very idea of
Right to Information is being compromised. To elaborate further, grounds such as
information which may constitute contempt of court and information which would cause
breach of Parliament and State legislature are very subjective. There is no mention of any
parameter that would decide what constitutes contempt & breach of privilege respectively.
This way there is a high chance of information not being disclosed.

The bill further goes on to state in amendment to section 5 that if there is any public interest
disclosure and it falls under these ten categories; the Competent Authority shall not inquire
into it and should refer it to a Government authority. There is no mention with regard to the
process of appointment or qualification of this authority.

4.4. RTI RULES: AN OVERVIEW

12
PRESENT STATUS OF WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011,
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=113101 (last visited Mar 1, 2018).
13
Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015
14
Supra note. 10

(10)
The Right to Information Rules which was notified by the Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT), Government of India in July 2012 provided the detailed procedures for
seeking and obtaining information under the RTI Act, 2005. Through a Circular published in
March, 2017, the DoPT has placed in the public domain a set of Draft Rules that seek to
replace the 2012 RTI Rules. ‘Concerned stakeholders’ had been invited to send their views
and suggestions by email or in hard copy to the DoPT by 15th April, 2017. The latest rule-
making initiative was done in the response to a petition filed by the Central Information
Commission (CIC) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging a 2010 Division Bench
judgement of the Delhi High Court quashing its Management Regulations instituted in 2007.
The Government of India has assured the Court that it will put in place a fresh set of RTI
Rules. The new set of rules have brought along criticism as well as appraisal. The selected
rules impact has been studied and will be analysed as following:

An introduction of separate formats for the complaints and appeals have been made. This
means that the complaint and the appeal will have to be filed separately and cannot be
combined in a single petition. This makes the process more cumbersome. It adds to the work
of the RTI Applicant and leads to unnecessary paper work. It will also become difficult for
the people of the country to file a petition. Since it is known that the formats of the appeal
and complaint are similar then it should be allowed to be combined in a single petition and
then filed.

Under Rule 8(ix) it is being made mandatory for the applicant to provide a copy of the
complaint/appeal to the respondent. After the cumbersome process of filing an RTI, the
applicant should not be expected to provide a copy of the complaint/appeal to the respondent
as this will not only lead to the infringing of anonymity which was maintained but will also
bring a threat to the life of the whistle blower. Unnecessary additions have also been made in
the rule 8 such as addition of double spacing should be there while filing an appeal. The
appeal should not be dismissed just for the sole reason of filing it without a double space.

In Rule 12(2), it is stated that the proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on
the death of the appellant. In case of death of the appellant, the appeal should not be
dismissed and shall be allowed to continue and the CIC should make calls on the basis of the
records. If the appellant is no more, then the appeal should be carried on as the case of public
interest and the appeal should be considered accordingly. When the CIC receives news of the

(11)
death of an appellant under whatever circumstances, the CIC must direct the disclosure of all
information sought in accordance with the provisions of the law. The CIC approved a
resolution in 2011 requiring it to examine suo motu, cases of RTI activists who are murdered
or attacked and direct proactive disclosure of the information sought in accordance with the
law. Draft Rule 12 must be amended to empower the CIC to take such action. Filing an
appeal before the CIC is not an exercise of the appellant’s right to sue which should
extinguish with his or her death.

The new rule no. 13 which has been introduced regarding the ‘Complaint to the Commission’
makes it a responsibility for the appellant to serve the complaint to the respondent and
produce proof before the CIC. The compulsory provision of proof and complaint to CIC and
respondent respectively makes it difficult to maintain anonymity and also poses a danger for
the appellant.

The draft rules 2017 will supersede the 2012 rules, the new rules contain provisions to plug
these gaps in the previous rules but fall short in other key areas. The rules lay out a specific
format for second appeals before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and cases of
non-compliance (this is basically in line with procedures laid out earlier by the CIC. The new
rules have now formalised that process).

The previous rules did not mention any procedure for non-compliance. The CIC had laid out
its own procedure to deal with the same. The new rules lay out a simplistic procedure to deal
with non-compliance. Rule 16 of the draft rules says that an application of non-compliance
must be filed within three months from the date of non-compliance. It further mandates that
the information commission take cognisance of the matter and proceed for action as defined
under the Act. Rule 17 further provides for a single bench for dealing with issues of non-
compliance, appeals etc.

Another stand-out feature in these draft rules is that when the commission does not mention
the time period for complying with its order, the rules will presume a 30-day period for
compliance. This is will ensure timely compliance of all orders passed by the commission
and goes a long way in achieving the objectives of the Act.15
15
RTI draft rules 2017: Vast improvement over previous rules, do not dilute RTI Act or its efficacy,  FIRSTPOST
(2017), http://www.firstpost.com/india/rti-draft-rules-2017-vast-improvement-over-previous-rules-do-not-
dilute-rti-act-or-its-efficacy-3475436.html (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

(12)
Receiving and inquiring into complaints made to the commission is one of the prime
functions of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners. The 2012
rules had no procedure or format defined for these purposes. Rules 13-15 of the draft rules
2017 lay down the procedure for filing the complaint as well as the procedure that the
commission must follow in deciding the complaint. Under these new rules, the commission
can set up an inquiry as well as allow for the complaint to be modified before the matter has
been finally heard.

Another thoughtful feature of these rules vis-à-vis complaints is that there is an option to
convert the complaint into a second appeal and the order of the commission will reflect the
same. Earlier, the CIC treated a complaint separately and the order to release information
could not passed in a complaint. The new rules will ensure that applicants complaining about
the non-disclosure of information then do not have to file a separate RTI application for the
disclosure of information in addition to the complaint.

(13)
 CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

The main aim of this study was to study the need of a law for protection of whistle blowers
and also the present law in place for the same. The study has provided insights with regard to
certain aspects of the law such as not taking into consideration an anonymous complaint only
hinders the protection of whistle blower and instead of facilitating use of the Right to
Information tool, forces the citizen or public servant to not be a whistle blower. For once,
even if these shortcomings are kept aside, what is an even major concern is that the Whistle
Blower Protection Act, 2011 which, after much delay was passed in 2014 is yet to be
notified. The Whistle Blower Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015 proposes certain changes to
the existing act which also in certain ways reduces the ambit of seeking information as ten
categories have been added, under which information sought will not be disclosed. In a
nutshell, through the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011 and the Whistle Blower Protection
(Amendment) Bill, 2015, the Government has done everything other than creating a
protective environment for the Whistle Blowers & encouraging people to use the tool of RTI.

The researchers, after the study recommend the following:

1.      That the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2011 be notified.

2.      That the authority should take into consideration complaints made anonymously.
3.      That the Competent Authorities should also be given the powers to prosecute instead of
only recommending action.
4.      That as was stated in the 179th Law Commission Report, mal-administration too should
be included in the definition of disclosure.
5.      That a suitable and reasonable test be derived to decide what information should be or
should not be disclosed.
6.      That the provisions of RTI rules, 2017 be revaluated in consultation with the civil society
or any other appropriate forum(s).

(14)
 CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES

 Aruna Roy & Nikhil Dey, THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION: FACILITATING PEOPLE'S

PARTICIPATION AND STATE ACCOUNTABILITY, http://www.cccindia.org.in/cs54b.pdf
(last visited Mar 1, 2018).

 V. Jwala Narsimha Rao, MODULE ON REFORMS INITIATIVES IN ADMINISTRATION ,

http://persmin.gov.in/otraining/UNDPProject/undp_modules/Reform%20Initiatives
%20in%20Admn%20N%20DLM.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

 J. Venkatesan, REPEAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RECOMMENDED, THE

HINDU, http://www.thehindu.com/2005/03/23/stories/2005032305841200.htm (last
visited Mar 1, 2018).

 Seema Chaudhary et al., STATE OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS AND THE USE OF RTI

LAWS IN INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE ,
http://humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/rti/ICs-RapidStudy-finalreport-NDelhi-
ATITeam-Jun15.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

 Leher Kala, BLAME GAME, THE INDIAN EXPRESS, (2018),

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/indian-railways-accident-safety-complaints-
whistleblower-blame-game-4-5060048/ (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

 TNN, 3 YOUTHS OSTRACISED FOR RTI EXPOSE, TIMES OF INDIA (2011),

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/3-youths-ostracised-for-RTI-
expose/articleshow/9559059.cms?referral=PM (last visiteds Mar 1, 2018).

 RTI activist attacked in Rajasthan, INDIAN EXPRESS (2012),

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2012/feb/09/rti-activist-attacked-in-
rajasthan-338555.html (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

(15)
 TNN, DENIED INFO, RTI ACTIVIST IMMOLATES SELF IN GUJARAT  THE TIMES OF

INDIA (2011), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Denied-info-RTI-activist-

immolates-self-in-Gujarat/articleshow/7543457.cms?referral=PM (last visited Mar 1,
2018).

 Rasheed Kidwaj, RTI CRUSADER STABBED TO DEATH, THE TELEGRAPH ,

https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170927/jsp/nation/story_175223.jsp (last visited
Mar 1, 2018).

 PRESENT STATUS OF WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION ACT, 2011,

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=113101 (last visited Mar 1, 2018).

 RTI draft rules 2017: Vast improvement over previous rules, do not dilute RTI Act or
its efficacy, FIRST POST (2017), http://www.firstpost.com/india/rti-draft-rules-2017-
vast-improvement-over-previous-rules-do-not-dilute-rti-act-or-its-efficacy-
 3475436.html (last visited Mar 1,
2018).

(16)