whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)

abc

1. Whistle blowing
S. R. Roy

2. Definition
•A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a
person who exposes misconduct, alleged dishonest or illegal
activity occurring in an organization.
•The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for
example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a
direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and
safety violations, and corruption.
•Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for
example, to other people within the accused organization)
or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to
the media or to groups concerned with the issues.

3. Definition
•Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who
report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within
their company. One of the most interesting questions with
respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what
circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop
illegal and otherwise unacceptable behaviour or report it.
•External whistleblowers, however, 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 whistle
blowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward.

4. Reaction towards whistle blowing
•Reaction towards whistle blowing vary widely. Whistleblowers
are sometimes seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and
organizational accountability.
•Others view them as "traitors" or "defectors," solely pursuing
personal glory and fame.
•It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing
the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also
because of fear of losing their relationships at work and
outside work.
•Private company employees in particular might be at risk of
being fired, demoted, denied raises and so on for bringing the
attention of appropriate authorities.
•Government employees could be at a similar risk for bringing
disrepute to the Govt.

5. Legal Protection
•The Government of India has been considering
adopting a whistleblower protection law for several
years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India
recommended the adoption of the Public Interest
Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Act, 2002.
•In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and
Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill,
2010 was introduced into the Lok Sabha, lower house
of the Parliament of India.

6. Legal Protection
•The Bill was approved by the cabinet in June, 2011. The
Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons
Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed as The
Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 by the Standing
Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and
Justice.
•The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 was passed
by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011. The Bill is
however currently pending in the upper house of
Parliament, Rajya Sabha for discussion and further
passage. The Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 29
March 2012 by V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State for
Parliamentary Affairs.

7. Whistleblowers’ Protection Bill
•Whistleblowers’ Protection Bill 2011, seeks to establish
a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations
of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public
servant. 
•The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation
of the person who makes the complaint.

8. Highlights of the Bill
•The Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public
interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power,
or criminal offence by a public servant.
•Any public servant or any other person including a non-governmental
organization may make such a disclosure to the Central or State
Vigilance Commission.
•Every complaint has to include the identity of the complainant.
•The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the
complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it
necessary.  The Bill penalises any person who has disclosed the
identity of the complainant.
•The Bill prescribes penalties for knowingly making false complaints.

9. Key Issues and Analysis
•The Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment
with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure.  It punishes any person
making false complaints.  However, it does not provide any penalty for victimising a
complainant.
  
•The CVC was designated to receive public interest disclosures since 2004 through a
government resolution.  There have been only a few hundred complaints every year. 
The provisions of the Bill are similar to that of the resolution.  Therefore, it is
unlikely that the number of complaints will differ significantly.
•The power of the CVC is limited to making recommendations.  Also it does not have
any power to impose penalties.  This is in contrast to the powers of the Karnataka
Lokayukta and the Delhi Lokayukta. 

•The Bill has a limited definition of disclosure and does not define victimisation.  Other
countries such as US, UK, and Canada define disclosure more widely and define
victimisation.
•The Bill differs on many issues with the proposed Bill of the Law Commission and the
2nd Administrative Reform Commission’s report.  These include non-admission of
anonymous complaints and lack of penalties for officials who victimise whistleblowers.

10. •In October last year, while serving as Director General,
Consolidation of Land Holdings, Khemka cancelled the
land mutation deal between Vadra and DLF. He was
shunted out of the department immediately.
•Khemka, who submitted a reply running into 100-plus
pages, alleged that the sale deed of February 12, 2008
through which Vadra's company Sky Light Hospitality
bought land from Onkareshwar Properties and a letter
of intent from the Department of Town and Country
Planning (DTCP) granting his company a commercial
licence in March 2008 were "sham transactions" to
allow Vadra collect market premium.
August 17,2013

11. •“No price was paid as claimed in the
registered deed. The sale registered in the
deed cannot, therefore, be called a sale in
true sense of the term, legal or moral, and it
cannot be said that Sky Light Hospitality
became owner of the land in question by
virtue of sale registered in the deed," Khemka
stated in his reply to the inquiry committee.

12. "The DTCP ignored rules and regulations to allow crony
capitalists operating as middlemen to flourish and
appropriate market premium of a licence... the DTCP aided
Vadra in making these sham transactions," he alleged. The
3.5 acres of land was shown as sold under registered deed
number 4928 dated February 12, 2008 by Onkareshwar
Pvt Ltd to Sky Light Hospitality Ltd for Rs. 7.5 crore as
full consideration amount vide cheque no. 607251 dated
February 9, 2008 of Corporation Bank, New Delhi. All
expenses, according to the deed, including stamp duty of
Rs 45 lakh, were borne by Sky Light Hospitality Ltd.