Open Access Research Article
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLE BLOWER
Published Paper
Article Details
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND PROTECTION
OF WHISTLE BLOWER
AUTHORED
BY - DR. VAISHALI THAKUR1,
1Assistant
Professor,
1University
Institute of Laws,
1Panjab
University Regional Centre, Ludhiana,Punjab
ABSTRACT
Information is a term that has its
origin in the Latin word ‘formation’ and ‘forma’ which denotes providing shape
to something and forming pattern, respectively. Information enhances and adds
on a person’s awareness and eliminates the vagueness of certain ideas.
Information being a power aims at empowering the largest subjects including the
weakest. It enables an individual to enjoy fundamental rights of free speech
and expression that has been enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution. The absence of authentic and reliable information on the matters
involving public interest and governing policies will frustrate the purpose of
the same constitutional right. Moreover it will encourage wild rumours,
speculations and avoidable allegations against individuals and institutions as
well. Hence there was need for the enactment of a concrete legislation which
facilitates active participation of people in democratic government process and
also promotes openness, transparency and accountability of governing bodies.
Eventually, Right to Information Act, 2005 came into light, replacing the
culture of concealment and control with honesty and involvement. Right to
Information is a process to secure access to information and setting out
unacceptable means. The Act became a pioneer tool in the hands of citizens of
India for promoting, protecting and defending their right to know. Such
knowledge becomes the strength of individuals which helps them raising voice
against any illegal activity or violations of public trust. The individuals
become whistle blowers who pass the information about malpractices and misdeeds
that have been occurring in their surrounding environment. They usually expose
the fraud, corruption, willful wrongdoing or similar unethical acts those may
be non-permissible under law. Such exposures often make the whistle blowers to
face unanticipated consequences and they should be protected against such odds.
Thus whistle blower protection is essential to encourage the reporting of
misconduct, fraud and corruption and for making the system more transparent and
accountable.
KEYWORDS:
Right to information, RTI Act, 2005, RTI Activists, Protection of Whistle Blowers
1.
INTRODUCTION
“A government which
functions in secrecy not only acts against democratic decency, but also buries
itself with its own burial.”
Justice V.R Krishna
Iyer
Until 2005 India witnessed an opaque system of
governance, vindicated by colonized Official Secrets Act, 1923. The enactment
of Right to Information Act, 2005 brought a transition from secret system to
one in which every citizen has a privilege to seek information. The Right to Information Act (RTI) is
an Act of the Parliament of India "to provide for setting out the practical
regime of right to information for citizens". It aims to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.[1]
The right to information at all levels is a necessary condition to bring
about the accountability necessary for reducing inefficiency and corruption.
The role of RTI activists in bringing out the illegal activities at public
offices is of immense importance. The efforts of RTI activists have exposed
many scams exploiting the public at large in the hands of government. In doing their duty and protecting ordinary
citizens, RTI activists have suffered and even laid down their lives. They have
to face harassment, assault and even murder. Hence there is a need for the
empowerment of such people with stronger safeguards.
The Whistle-Blower Protection Act is one of such attempts that have been
made for the persons who dare to raise voice against any illegal or wrong
doing. The Act, came into force in the year 2014, provides for protection to
the people who are blowing the whistle against corruption in public sector. An
important objective of a whistleblower law is to provide a safe alternative to
silence.[2] It
is a legislation to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to
disclosure, to inquire into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards
against victimisation of the person making such complaint. The disclosures may
be an instance of corruption or willful misuse of power. The Act lays down who
may make disclosure, about what they may make disclosure, to which they may
make disclosures, inquiry into the disclosures, powers of the competent
authority, protection of the persons making disclosure, offences and penalties
and other provisions.
2.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
Looking at the concept from
historical perspective, it can be inferred that the concept of search for truth
is not alien to the Indian political thinkers and philosophers. They have
expressed concern to secure knowledge since the very early time of Vedic age.
In this context the great Upanishad philosophy says "Tamso ma
Jyotigramaya" means “Oh Lord! Lead me from darkness to light i.e. from
ignorance to knowledge.”[3]
Keeping this in consideration and recognising a new facet of freedom of speech
and expression the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of the landmark case[4]
held that “In
a government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be
responsible for the conduct there can be but a few secrets. The people of this
country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a
public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the
particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings.” Thus, the journey
of this right which derived it’s birth from Article 19(1)(a) started which
eventually lead to enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005, the history,
constitutional perspective, salient features and development has been traced in
following paragraphs.
2.1
Historical Background
Time and again there have been many efforts being initiated
and taken on the part of government, private institutions and individuals to
empower the citizens of India with right to information. In the life of Indian Republic, the
first political commitment to the citizen's right to information came up on the
eve of the Lok Sabha Elections in 1977 as a corollary to public resentment
against suppression of information, press censorship and abuse of authority
during the Internal Emergency of 1975-77. In its election manifesto of the
1977, the Janata Party promised "an open government," and declared
that it would not 'misuse the intelligence services and governmental authority
for personal and partisan ends." Pursuant to this commitment, the Janata
government headed by Morarji Desai constituted in 1977 a working group to
ascertain if the Official Secrets Act, 1923, could be modified so as to
facilitate if the Official Secrets Act, 1923 could be modified so as to
facilitate greater flow of information to the public. The working group
comprising officials from the cabinet Secretariat and the Ministries of Home
Affairs, Finance and Defence laboured for months to recommend that the Act of
1923 should be retained without change.[5] In
its 1989 LokSabha Election Manifesto, the National Front Committed itself to
"open government", and declared unequivocally that "people's
right to information shall be guaranteed through Constitutional
provisions".[6] A
special emphasis and commitment was laid down by the then Prime Minister V.P.
Singh, however sadly, despite such strong commitment, there was actually no
headway towards transparency and openness in governmental functioning due to
the early falls of the National Front Government. The actual Right to Information
campaign, began in the early 1990s in rural Rajasthan through the struggles of
peasants and workers of the MazdoorKisan Shakti Sangathan, a non-party
political organization fighting on issues of land, minimum wages and delivery
of basic services to the poor.[7]
In 1994 the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) spearheaded the
right to information movement in Rajasthan and subsequently, throughout
India. This movement grew and the campaign resulted in the government of
Rajasthan enacting a law on Right to Information in 2000.In 1996, National
Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), one among several civil
society groups, was founded with the objective of getting legislation on RTI
passed.[8]
In 1997, the Government of India, appointed a working Group under the
chairmanship of H.D. Shourie, which drafted the Freedom of Information Bill,
1997.[9]
In 2002, Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 was introduced in Parliament, and
was referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. It was passed in both houses of Parliament in
December 2002 and received the assent of the President of India on 6th January,
2003, and became law, known as Freedom of Information Act, 2002 to which
certain amendments, were suggested to be made, by National Campaign for
People’s Right to Information.[10]
Finally in 2004 RTI Bill 2004; applicable only to Union Government was
presented. After heavy lobbying by NCPRI and other organizations the Right to
Information Act, 2005 was passed with 150 amendments along with application to
States also. It received assent of President of India on 15th June 2005, and
was published in the Gazette of India on 21st June 2005. RTI Act, 2005 came
into force with effect from 12th October 2005, and known as Right to
Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005).
2.2
Constitutional Perspective and Judicial Trend before
Enactment of Right to Information, 2005
In India, Right to Information is a fundamental right under
the Constitution of India and is an integral part of right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21. Although Article 19 does not specifically mention the Right
to Information, the Apex Court has held in endless cases that the right to know
is a part of the right to speech and expression due to the following reasons:
a. To speak and express freely, we must have information on any
subject;
b. In a democracy we must know what the government is doing in
order to express opinions on it. Expressing opinions includes the right to
dissent.[11]
In Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India[12]
for the first time right to information was recognized as a fundamental right
under Article 19 (1) (a). In Indian Express Newspaper Bombay Ltd. And others v.
Union of India[13]
it was observed that right to impart and receive information is a species of
the Right of Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution. Again, in People’s Republic for Civil Liberties v. Union
of India[14]
right to information has been held to be part of Article 19 (1) (a).
2.3
Right to Information Act, 2005: Salient Features of the Act
The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a codification of this
important right of citizens. The right existed since the time India became a
republic, but was difficult to enforce without going to court.[15]
The salient features of this Act are:
1. Right to Information: Section 3 gives right to information to all citizens, but
not to non-citizens. Right to information as defined in Section 2(j), means the
right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the
control of any public authority.
2. Specified
time-period and format for requisitioning information: An application in a prescribed format can be made to seek
information from public authority which must be provided within 30 days.
3. Public Information
Officers and Assistant Public Information Officers: At each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level, the
public authority shall designate an officer as Assistant Public Information
Officer. Public Information Officer shall deal with the request for information
and shall render reasonable assistance to the person seeking information. It is
the duty of the Assistant public Information Officer to receive the
applications or appeals under the Act. He shall forward forthwith the applications
for information to the Public information Officer and applications for appeals
to Senior Officer of the Information Commission.
3.
WHISTLEBLOWERS
PROTECTION
The existing era of globalization leads economic
motives over all morals and virtues. Such motives often make the individuals
indulge in many corrupt and illegal practices. The act of raising voice against
or disclosing such practices is known as whistle blowing. It also implies
raising concern against any wrong or misdeed at any working place or public
office.
Whistle blowing basically means raising an
alarm at the wrong within or outside the organization, where the interest of
many people is at stake. One makes noise only with an intention to alert others
to a misconduct or misappropriation. The intention to raise alarm should not be
to create any kind of panic but only to raise alarm. It is considered very
risky sometimes owing to the types of disclosures one makes. It is important
for a whistle blower to make sure that certain aspects are taken into
consideration before raising alarm. A whistle blower has to make sure that the
information that he or she has are the true facts and not any kind of rumours.
Otherwise it may create unnecessary tension. However, this will help to deal
with the future problems in a much easier way.
3.1
Meaning of Whistle Blower
A whistleblower is an individual who comes forward to share his or her
knowledge about any misconduct, malpractice, unethical behavior or any
wrongdoing which he or she thinks is taking place in the whole organization or
in the specific department of the organization. A whistle blower could either
be an employee, a supplier, a contractor, or whosoever becomes aware of any
illegal activities and discloses information to the public or some higher authority
about any wrongdoing, which could be in the form of fraud, corruption, etc.[16]
According to Bok S (1980)[17]
whistle blowers are
those individuals who “sound an alarm from within the very organization in
which they work, aiming to spotlight or abuses that threaten the public
interests”.
R.M Green (1994)[18]
defines a whistleblower as “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”.
According to John A. Grey (2004)[19],
the term
“whistle-blower” refers primarily to an employee who, in good faith, attempts
to have the employer stop conduct that the employee reasonably believes to be
injurious to the public and a violation of the law either through internal
efforts or by disclosing the illegal conduct externally to the press or law
enforcement agencies.
According to Hellriegel,
Jackson, Staude and Associates (2001)[20],
“whistle blower’s as
employers to other people or organizations that are capable of their employers
to other people or organizations that are capable of taking corrective action”.
Jubb (1999)[21]
defines, “whistle
blowing is a deliberate nonobligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public
record and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or
information of an organization, about nontrivial illegality or other wrongdoing
whether actual, suspected or anticipated which implicates and is under the
control of that organization, to an external entity having potential to rectify
the wrongdoing”.
International
Labour Organization (ILO) defines[22]
whistle blowing as “the reporting by employees or former employees of illegal,
irregular, dangerous or unethical practices by employers”.
According to Hellriegel, Jackson, Staude and Associates (2001)[23],
“whistle blower’s as
employers to other people or organizations that are capable of their employers
to other people or organizations that are capable of taking corrective action”.
Similarly, Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman[24] defines, “whistle blowing means
calling attention to wrongdoing that is occurring within an organization”.
3.2
Types of Whistle Blowing
§ Internal whistle blowing: It is blowing the whistle inside the
organization, for example, raising voice against designated officer, workers or
bosses in the same organization. Usually most whistle blowers are internal
whistle blowers, who report misconduct of a fellow employee or superior within
their company. They are the people who either act on the spot to stop illegal
and otherwise unacceptable behavior being followed or report it. Moreover it is
often believed that people are more likely to take action with respect to
unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems
that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization,
but a choice of options for absolute confidentiality.
§ External whistle blowing: External
whistle-blowing refers to blowing the whistle to law enforcement agencies or to teams worried with
the matters of public interests for example by Lawyers, Mass media, law
enforcement. External whistle blowers, however, report misconduct on outside
persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity
and nature, whistle blowers 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.
§ Alumni Whistle-blowing: When the whistle blowing is done by a person who is no more
employed by organization but he is acting on willful wrongdoings he has
witnessed during his employment with the same organization. Such ex-employees
can unearth such deliberate mismanagements with relevant authorities.
§ Public whistle blowing: Disclosing information to the media, by means of the
Internet, at a public gathering, or in any other manner that information may be
made public shall be deemed public whistle blowing. A whistleblower may
disclose information to the public at large without having previously disclosed
it to an employer or competent authority in the event of an immediate threat to
life, public health, and safety, the environment, to causing large-scale
damage, or if there is an immediate threat to destroying the evidence. When
blowing the whistle to the public at large, a whistleblower shall be required
to comply with the principle of presumption of innocence of an accused, the
right to personal data protection, as well as not to hinder the conduct of the
court proceedings.
3.3
Need for the Protection of
Whistleblowers
Whistle-blowing in the
current global scenario has gained a lot of recognition and has not remained
the topic of unsung world. The modern world has witnessed many cases of
whistle-blowers. But life is not a bed of roses for a person who blows the
whistle against corruption going on in an organization. It requires the
tremendous courage to expose the wrong doings going on in an organization in
which one is working as an employee.[25]
It usually happens that the reaction of employees towards illegal and unethical
practices within the organization often lead them to risk their job or life.
Once the identity of whistleblower is revealed to the wrong doers then it is
tough to protect the person from victimization at the hands of employers and
top officials.
Whistleblower’s
protection is imperative to encourage the reporting of misconduct, fraud and
corruption. The risk of corruption is heightened in the environment where the
reporting is either not supported or protected. This is the requirement in both
public and private sector. Providing the effective protection for
whistleblowers supports an open organizational culture where employees are not
only aware about the procedure to report the corrupted and unfair practices but
also have the confidence that they will not be victimized.
In this scenario, if laws
also don’t give support to the whistleblowers then their efforts will be in
vain and in future no one will dare to expose the corruption going on in an
organization. Hence there is need to formulate concrete legislations for
protection of whistle-blowers which should provide mandatory strict provisions.
3.4
Whistle-Blower Protection Act, 2014
Whistle-blowing is a task
of great courage as the acts of whistle-blowers often let them face some harsh
consequences that can be related to losing their job or sometimes life as well.
Hence in order to eliminate the growing cases of harassment, unjust behavior
with and even murder of whistle blowers in India and to give them legal
protection under the law, the Cabinet of India approved the Whistle blower
Protection Act, 2011. The Act was passed by the Lok Sabha on 27th December
2011, by Rajya Sabha on 21st February 2014 and finally received the President’s
assent on 9th May 2014. The Act replaces the government resolution that
empowered the (CVC) Central Vigilance Commission to act on complaints from
whistle blowers, and has structured mechanism to receive complaints of willful
misuse of power by a public servants or corruption. The Act aims to make the
whistle blowers feel protected under the aegis of law while disclosing any such
incident. It enables any person who may be a whistleblower to report an act of
corruption or to report against those who misuse their power or discretion or
to report an act against criminal offence done by a public servant.[26]
With the enactment of this Act any
public servant or/and any other person including a non-government organization
can make a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission. As per this
Act it is mandatory for the complainant to include his/her identity with the
complaint or in other words the disclosure of any wrongdoing. The Central
Vigilance Commission has been directed not to disclose the identity of the
complainant except to a higher official if he deems it necessary. The Act
penalizes any public official who reveals the identity of the complainant,
without any proper approval with up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine upto
50,000 Rupees. The Act has also prescribed penalties for deliberately filing
any false or frivolous complaints with up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of
up to Rs. 20,000
3.5 Cases
relating to whistle blowing
·
Three whistle-blowers who unraveled Vyapam
Scam: Though the
malpractice in Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (MPPEB) known as
Vyapam in Hindi has been happening for decades as the first complaint came in
1995 and in 2000 first FIR was filed. Ashish Chaturvedi
with his police security, Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vyapam conducts
large-scale competitive tests for admission to various professional courses and
for recruitment to government jobs. The Vyapam scam involved collusion among
exam candidates, government officials and middlemen who helped undeserving
candidates get high marks and secure government jobs. In 2013, three men,
Prashant Pandey, 36, a digital forensic engineer with a two-year experience
working with enforcement agencies in Madhya Pradesh, Dr Anand Rai a medical
officer with a government hospital in Indore and 26-year old Ashish Chaturvedi,
a student of social work in Gwalior broke a massive scam in July 2013 in
which 20 people were arrested from different city hotels. Over 30 people
who were somehow related to the scam have died in suspected circumstances and
three activists who broke the scam have also faced various threats and have
been given security.[27]
·
Though Vishvanath Chaturvedi
had a political affiliation from Congress, but he fought against all odd to
expose Samajwadi Party patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav’s colossal wealth amassed
with the help of corruption. In 2005, he had filed a case against Mulayam Singh
Yadav, his son Akhilesh Yadav, his wife Dimple Yadav, and his stepbrother
Prateek Yadav, for allegedly amassing illegal wealth. Chaturvedi collected
information through RTI, and simple back to back calculation of the assets
based on the declaration of the assets Yadavs filled for different elections.
Taking cognizance of his allegations, the Supreme Court called in the CBI in
2007. A hearing has been completed but the judgment has been lying reserved
since 2009. Chaturvedi faced many threats that were real in nature as he was in
UP, after all, the bastion of the Yadavs. Therefore, he had to leave UP and
started living in Delhi.[28]
·
Ashok Khemka- The man who dared
the cancel the land deal between DLF and Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of Sonia
Gandhi and that too in 2012 when there was a Congress government at centre as
well as the state concerned Haryana. This wasn’t the first time when
Khemka refused to bow before the corruption. As the sub-divisional magistrate
in Sohana in August 1994, he had refused to pay heed to the orders of
his deputy commissioner when he asked Khemka to arrangement buses and trucks
for the rally of then PM Narasimha Rao and then CM Bhajan Lal. In 2004, he
again refused to swallow the pill of corruption when he refused to order the
mid-session transfers of schoolteachers and blocked the transfer of 20 acres in
Badshahpur, Gurgaon to a private realty firm for a paltry Rs 4
crore. Khemka has arguably got more transfer letters than any other bureaucrat
in India. But bureaucrats like him, Sanjeev Chaturvedi, Amitabh Thakur and
Pradeep Kasni are examples which prove that bureaucracy in India still has some
hopes left.[29]
·
Shanmugam Manjunath was a
marketing manager (grade A officer) for the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC)
posted at Lakhimpur Kheri in UP. He in order to curb the malpractices of petrol
pump owners sealed a petrol pump in his jurisdiction area. Hence, he was
murdered. The Chhatarpur Police found his body at Kandaghati in Chhatarpur on
May 15, 2008. His mutilated body and a belt around his neck suggested he was
strangled and his face smashed to deform it beyond recognition. The police
buried the body as unidentified the same day.[30]
·
Ratna Ala is the 36-year-old
son of a shepherd from Rangpar village in the Wankaner taluka of Morvi district
in western Gujarat. Ala is blind since birth, but Braille makes him an able.
When RTI Act came in 2005 and Ala got to learn about it via radio, he filled an
RTI seeking information about a two-kilometre stretch of the road that
connected his village to the highway. The road was in shambles, but the reply
that he got shocked him. In reply, he learnt that on paper, the road had been
repaired twice in the last two years. He handed over the reply to media and
soon the road was repaired and relaid. Since then, Ala became an RTI activist
and unearthed many scams. For example, in 2007, he prevented officials who were
giving 281 acres of the village grazing land to a clock factory without
permissions from the state government. In 2011, he exposed 154 bogus names in
voting of Sarpanch election in his village whereas, in 2014, he busted a
fledgeling illegal mining racket, withstanding threats to life and refusing
bribes.[31]
·
Amit Jethwa was an Indian
environmentalist and social worker and he worked actively in the Gir Forest
area near Junagadh, Gujarat. During his work as a social worker, he found that
illegal mining was carried out in protected areas and he charged Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament, Dinu Solanki as the main culprit. He
was working as the president of the Gir Nature Youth Club and he was the one
who highlighted the use of a Chinkara deer in a scene in the movie Lagaan and
opposed a Bhuj court decision which put a stay on inquiry against the actor-director
Aamir Khan. Not only was this but he also instrumental in the five-year jail
term of Bollywood actor Salman Khan for shooting an endangered Chinkara deer.
On 20th July, soon after he filed a case against BJP MP, he had gone to meet
his lawyer near the Gujarat High court in Ahmedabad. As he was leaving the
complex, two assailants on a motorcycle shot him at close range with a
country-made pistol. He fought bravely with the assailants but they were able
to escape. In the initial days of inquiry, Gujrat police gave a clean chit to
Dinu Solanki but this was severely criticized. Later the case was transferred
to CBI and in November 2013 Dinu Solanki was arrested by CBI. [32]
·
Shehla Masood, She was the secretary of NGO Udai.
NGO Udai was created in 2004, it recently ventured into tiger and forest
conservation. Masood was an activist
working primarily on wildlife conservation, and also supported other causes
like good governance, RTI Act, Police reforms, environment, women's
rights & issues and transparency. She sat on a fast in support of Anna
Hazare's India against Corruption campaign. She was actively involved in
raising issues related to the deaths of tigers in the various sanctuaries of
M.P. Shehla herself was working for the Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Trust,
organizing events for them from Srinagar to Kolkata to Delhi. She had asked for
details about Narmada Samagraha, an NGO backed by the BJP Rajya Sabha MP. She
was about to leave for Boat Club in Bhopal to join the anti-government protest
to bring the Jan-Lokpal Bill when she was killed. She co-founded RTI Anonymous,
a service for whistle blowers for filing anonymous Right to Information (RTI)
Applications with Indian Government departments without getting victimized,
with her friends just a few days before her death. Shehla Masood was posthumously awarded the award for her relentless
effort under the category, 'Crusade against Corruption'. Masood was
constantly living under threat, as revealed by her in an interview before she
was shot dead. On August 16, 2011 at
around 11:19 AM, she was shot by an unidentified assailant from point blank
range.[33]
4.
CONCLUSION
The transparency of
information is vital in any society. RTI being social legislation proved to be
a tool to impart information to citizens of India regarding working of the
government and its corporations, etc. to make them more transparent as a result
of which corruption would be checked to a greater extent. RTI provides platform
for whistle-blowing which discloses the true picture of any working system.
However such the activists i.e. the whistleblowers often have to bear the
consequences of their acts. As such the Whistle-blower Protection Act, 2014 is
enacted to protect the people who blow whistle against any misdeed or corruption
in public sector.
However, the Act has certain limitations as well. The Provisions of Act
covers only the government sector and includes only those who are working for
Government of India. The bill fails to include the state government and private
sector employees within its ambit. The Act has not made any provisions to
encourage whistle blowing by ensuring some financial incentives as a reward for
making the disclosure about any wrongdoing. Both the Acts i.e RTI Act and
Whistle Blower Protection Act seek the identity of applicant and informant as
in case of RTI and whistle blowing respectively making it mandatory for the
Whistle Blower to disclose his/her name while making any disclosure to the
Competent Authority. This lacunae itself dilutes all the other provisions in
the Act. Till now, many whistle blowers have been brutally murdered as well as
threatened. Moreover, there is no clarity on the kinds of protection that a
whistle blower is entitled to receive. But, the law still lacks any specific
penalties for the physical attacks on whistle blowers and that makes it a cause
of serious concern.
[1] MLA Thiyagarajan, Normative values of Right To Information act
2005 a critical study (2015), available at http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/76718/09_chapter2.pdf
[2] Anshul
Agnihotri and Sankul Kabra, “Whistleblower
Legislation in India: Comparison with International Standards”, Vol. 1, Indian Journal of Law and Policy Review, (2016).
[3]“Concept and Genesis of Right to
Information” available at file:///C:/Users/gg/Downloads/09_chapter%202.pdf
[4]State of U.P. v. Raj Narain , AIR
1975 SC 865.
[5] Chandi Ram, Right to information law and its implementation (2013), available
at http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/32397/7/07_chapter%201.pdf.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “The Invisible History of People’s
Movement” available at https://www.telegraphindia.com/1140313/jsp/opinion/story_18068459.jsp
[8] “History of Right to Information
in India: Evolution and Challenges” available at http://rtiact2005.com/history-of-rti-act-2005-in-india-evolution-and-challenges/
[9] Dr. S.S.Srivastava, Right to Information (Central Law
Agency, Allahabad, First Edition, 2012)
[10] Supra Note 8
[11]Dr. Jyoti Rattan, Right to Information Act, 2005 (Bharat
Law Publishers, New Delhi, 6th Edition, 2022)
[12]AIR 1973 SC 106.
[13]AIR 1989 SC 190.
[14]AIR 2004 SC 1442.
[15]N.K. Jain, Right to Information: Concept, Law and Practice, (Regal
Publications, New Delhi, 2007).
[16] Nikita Pasan and Surbhi Jain, “Critical Analysis Of The Whistle Blowers
Protection Mechanism In Indian Law”
[17] Bok, S., “Whistleblowing and professional responsibilities”, Ethics teaching in
higher education 277-295 Springer, Boston, MA, 1980.
[18] Ibid.
[19] John A Grey, The Scope of Whistleblower Protection in
the State of Maryland: A Comprehensive Statute is needed, 33U BALT.L.REV.225, (2004).
[20] Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S.E., Slocum, J., Staude, G.
& Associates, Management 4th South African Edition, Cape
Town: Oxford University Press, 2001
[21] Peter B Jubb, "Whistle Blowing: a restrictive
definition and interpretation”, Vol. 21, Journal
of Business ethics, Issue 1, 1999.
[22] A. Brown, D. Lewis, R. Moberly, and W.
Vandekerckhove, International Handbook on
Whistle-blowing, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2014.
[23] Supra Note 20
[24] Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman, “Whistle Blowing in
the Public Sector”, available at http://www.scu.edu
[25] “Whistleblower Protection”,
Lawyers Update, Vol. XVIII, Part 5, May 2012.
[26] Whistle Blower Protection in India, available at https://www.lawfarm.in/blogs/whistleblowers-protection-in-india.
[27] Ketki Angre, “Meet the Three
Whistleblowers of Vyapam Scam”, available at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/meet-the-three-whistleblowers-of-vyapam-scam-779904
[28] Shylaja Verma, “What Happened?"
Supreme Court On 2007 Mulayam Singh-Akhilesh Yadav Case” available at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-2007-assets-case-against-mulayam-singh-yadav-akhilesh-yadav-supreme-court-asks-cbi-for-status-rep-2012323
[29] Prashant Krar, “Whistle blower
Ashok Khemka in Robert Vadra-DLF land deal transferred for 44th time”,
available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/whistle-blower-ashok-khemka-in-robert-vadra-dlf-land-deal-transferred-for-44th
time/articleshow/19386465.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
[30] “Manjunath Murder Case: SC upholds
life imprisonment of all six accused”, available at https://www.moneylife.in/article/manjunath-murder-case-sc-upholds-life-imprisonment-of-all-six-accused/40777.html
[31] “This blind man's vision guides
his village”, available at https://www.goimonitor.com/story/blind-mans-vision-guides-his-village
[32] “Crusaders against Corruption:
List of Whistleblowers in India”, available at https://knowledgeofindia.com/list-of-whistleblowers-in-india/
[33] “The inside story of Shehla
Masood's murder”, available at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/rti-activist-shehla-masood-murder-zahida-pervez-94932-2012-03-03
Article Information
RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF WHISTLE BLOWER
Authors: VAISHALI THAKUR, MS. SUMANPREET KAUR
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/01
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.