Whistleblowing and the Protection of

Whistleblowers Act
by Aadhithya Krishnan P
 Introduction
• A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed
illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public.
• According to Boatright, “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.”
• R. M. Green has given a simpler definition of whistle-blowing: “A 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.”
• The information of alleged wrongdoing can be classified in many ways: violation of
company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well
as fraud, and corruption. Those who become whistleblowers can choose to bring
information or allegations to surface.
• Whistleblowing could be categorized into three:

i. Internal Whistleblowing:

When the whistleblower reports the wrongdoings to the officials at higher position in the
organization. The usual subjects of internal whistleblowing are disloyalty, improper conduct,
indiscipline, insubordination, disobedience etc.

ii. External Whistleblowing:

External whistleblowers report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases,

depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to
lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal
agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.

iii. Third Party Whistleblowing:

The third party service involves utilizing an external agency to inform the individuals at the top
of the organizational pyramid of misconduct, without disclosing the identity of the
whistleblower. This is a relatively new phenomenon and has been developed due to
whistleblower discrimination. International Whistleblowers is an example of an organization
involved in delivering a third party service for whistleblowers.

An increasing number of companies and authorities use third party services in which the
whistleblower is anonymous also towards the third party service provider. This is possible via
toll free phone numbers configured not to record the whistleblower origin call, and also through
web solutions which apply asymmetrical encryption.
What causes whistleblowing?
Be 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. Hence, 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. Because, prevention is
cheaper and better than cure. One way to be proactive in this regard is to have the knowledge about
what actually causes whistle-blowing in an organization. Researchers have listed the following as the
usual causes of whistle-blowing in organizations:

1. Misuse of official funds for private purposes

2. Official powers used for private gain

3. Discrimination by age, race, or sex.

4. Corruption.

5. Dumping of industrial pollutants causing harm to public.

6. Deceptive advertising.

7. Non-enforcement of laws.

8. Adulteration.

9. Sexual harassment.
Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act in the Parliament of India which provides
a mechanism to investigate 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 form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement.
The Act will also ensure punishment for false or frivolous complaints.
• An Act to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any
allegation of corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion against
any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide
adequate safeguards against victimization of the person making such complaint and for
matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
• The Act was approved by the Cabinet of India as part of a drive to eliminate corruption in
the country's bureaucracy and passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011. The Bill
was passed by Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and received the President's assent on 9
May 2014.
Key features of the Act
Chapter V(Section 11-14) of the Act deals with protection to the person making disclosure

The key features of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014:

• The act establishes a mechanism to receive complaints related to disclosure of allegations of
corruption or wilful misuse of power or discretion, against any public servant, and to inquire
or cause an inquiry into such disclosure.
• The act also provides adequate safeguards against victimization of the person making such
complaints.
• It allows any person, including a public servant, to make a public interest disclosure before a
Competent Authority. The law has elaborately defined various competent authorities. For
instance, Competent authority to complaint against any union minister is the Prime Minister.
• The law does not allow anonymous complaints to be made and clearly states that no action
will be taken by a competent authority if the complainant does not establish his/her identity.
• Exemptions: The act is not applicable to the Special Protection Group (SPG) personnel and
officers, constituted under the Special Protection Group Act, 1988.
• Court of Appeal: Any person aggrieved by any order of the Competent Authority can make
an appeal to the concerned High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the
order.
• Penalty: Any person who negligently or mala-fidely reveals the identity of a complainant
will be punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to 3 years and a fine which
may extend up to Rs 50,000.If the disclosure is done mala-fidely and knowingly that it was
incorrect or false or misleading, the person will be punishable with imprisonment for a term
extending up to 2 years and a fine extending up to Rs. 30,000.
• Annual Report: The Competent Authority prepares a consolidated annual report of the
performance of its activities and submits it to the Central or State Government that will be
further laid before each House of Parliament or State Legislature.
• The Whistleblowers Act overrides the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and allows the
complainant to make public interest disclosure before competent authority even if they are
violative of the later act but not harming the sovereignty of the nation.
• In 2015, an amendment bill was moved that proposes, whistleblowers must not be allowed
to reveal any documents classified under the Official Secrets Act of 1923 even if the
purpose is to disclose acts of corruption, misuse of power or criminal activities. This dilutes
the very existence of the 2014 Act.
Major Shortcomings of the Bill
1. The bill does not even recognise the term ‘whistleblower’, even after passing an amendment to the
effect that the bill may alternatively be called ‘Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011’. Consequentially,
no definition has been provided.

2. The term ‘Victimization’ has not been defined; making it highly susceptible to manipulation. No
penalty for victimization has been prescribed. Punishment for revealing the identity of whistleblower is
insufficient.

3. The definition of ‘Disclosure’ is significantly constricted and does not include negligent acts and
omissions of public servants.

4. No action on anonymous complaints and disclosures.

5. Penalty for frivolous disclosures will discourage the persons reporting corruption. ‘Frivolous
disclosure’ has not been defined anywhere.

6. No reward for the whistleblower (parliamentary standing committee recommended cash rewards).

7. Provisions made for protection of whistleblowers are inadequate. Besides, there should have been
separate provisions for safety of women whistleblowers as they will be more vulnerable to harassment

8. Period of limitation for filing a complaint though increased from five to seven years yet is inadequate
for cases involving gross negligence pertaining to public interest, safety and health
Some famous whistleblower cases in India
1. Satyendra Dubey:
• Satyendra Dubey was a project director at the National Highways Authority of India
(NHAI). The Indian Government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee initiated an enormous Golden
Quadrilateral Project undertaking to link all major Indian cities through four and six-lane
highways and Satyendra Dubey was answerable for dealing with a segment of NH-2.
• He spotted huge financial irregularities in handling of GQ project.
• He sent an anonymous letter to the PMO with a separate CV attached telling the PM how
many contractors had "submitted forged documents to justify their technical and financial
capabilities" to win bids for the contract. He requests the to PM not to reveal his identity.
Letter is forwarded along with the CV to the Ministry of Road,Transport and Highways.
• In 2003, he was murdered in Gaya, Bihar while returning from a wedding in Varanasi. A
special CBI court headed by Raghvendra Singh found 3 accused guilty and they were
sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Indian Oil Corporation case
• In this case, M. Shanmugam, who was an Indian Institute of Management graduate,
while he was working in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, he was murdered for
sealing 2 petroleum stations for selling defiled fuel in Lakhimpur Kheri, UP. At the
point when the petrol pump started working again, he led an unexpected raid following
a month, to check the quality of fuel. In 2005, he was shot dead. This news caused a
massive outcry in the nation as well as the media. The Trial Court found all accused
guilty and all the 8 accused were convicted, while one of the accused was sentenced to
death and rest of the 7 were given life imprisonment.
• However, the High Court changed the decision for the accused who was provided with
death sentence to life detainment and also acquitted 2 accused. In 2015, the Supreme
Court maintained the life imprisonment granted to six men.
3. V. Saseendran
• Saseendran had written to the Chief Minister, the Industries Minister and the Vigilance
Director about rampant corruption in the loss-making company, where he had worked
for 12 years. He alleged that the managing director's secretary, P Suryanarayanan, was
leaking vital company information outside.
• Five days later, however, he wrote to them again, regretting he had raised such
allegations. The following month, he quit. Family sources say Saseendran had been
forced to withdraw his initial allegations. In 2007, an audit report had found that the
firm had lost Rs 400 crore in corrupt deals since 2001. Vigilance authorities registered
11 cases, with Saseendran as the prime witness in four of these. In fact, his death came
a week after Vigilance submitted the charge-sheet in a case involving the loss of Rs 16
crore.
 Conclusion
• There is no denying the fact that whistle-blowers do a great service tothe society at their
great risk and cost, even at the loss of life. Hence, 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. Many employees may be
afraid to speak out even when legal protection exists. But, its very existence will deter
government and corporate wrongdoings to a considerable extent and, in turn, will
ensure good governance. As the type of scenario exists today in India, the chances of
enacting legislation for protection to whistle-blowers seems remote. But, 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 just 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. Sooner is obviously welcome.