This presentation speaks about the Whistle Blowers Amendment Bill 2015. It also emphasis on the different conventions and legislation dealing with whistle blower. it has pointed out about the people who has to pay their life for being whistle blowers. it has given main focus on the shortcomings of the bill

1. THE WHISTLE BLOWERS PROTECTION
( AMENDEMENT BILL) 2015
MAYA.S.KUMAR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DR. AMBEDKAR GLOBAL
LAW INSTITUTE, TIRUPATI

2. CORRUPTION
Corruption =(Monopoly)+ (Discretion)-
Accountability
-Robert klitgard
 Corruption drains resources from the local and the national
constituencies causing an uncontrollable use in the public
expenditure and a distress in the justness and the efficiency of
the democratic institutions and it’s a policy contributor to
poverty and injustice
 Corruption which becomes a plague running the environment
and often goes unchallenged when the people are frightened to
raise voice about it.
 Individuals reporting corruption are facing numerous hurdles
including verbal hurts , physical violence and ostracism.
Confronted to this many potential people who want to spaek
and react against the social evil choose to remain silent

3. WHISTLEBLOWING:-
( Blow Against Corruption)
 Whistleblowing can be defined as an act of disclosure of
information by people within or outside an organisation and
that which is not otherwise accessible to public , general
activities of the organisation that are against the public
interest . Whistleblowing is a channel of uneviling
information about illegal or unethical activities, thus helping
to take a positive steps towards reduction of corruption.
 There is a close connection between the public servant
willingness to disclose corruption and the protection given
to his/her identity. If adequate statutory protection is granted
there is every likelihood that the govt. would be able to get
substantial information about corruption
 Whistleblower can tackle the cancerous growth of
corruption .

4. “I am neither a hero nor a Traitor but I am
an american
-Edward Snowden
U.S Civic Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970’s to
avoid the negative connotations found in other words such
as informers and snitches. The origin of the term is from the
practice of English cops who would blow the whistle when
they saw the crime being commited (carico 2004)
 Whistleblower help to play a role in keeping the power in
check , oneside whistleblower is the ultimate act of justice
whereas on the other hand it can be seen as an ultimate
betrayal
 Edward Snowden , the U.S famous Whistleblower is of the
view that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.

5. International Convention On
Whistleblower Protection:-
 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)- Article-
8,13 & 33
 2009, OECD, Recommendation of the Council for Further
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Business Transaction( Anti-Bribery Recommendation)- section 9iii
and section X.CV
 OECD 1988, Recommendation on Improving Ethical Conduct in
Public Service – Principle 4
 Council of Europe Civil and Criminal Law Convention On
Corruption – Article 9 & Article 22
 Inter American Convention against Corruption (Article III(8) ).
 African Union convention on Prevention and Combating
Corruption – Article 5(6)

6. Legislation Across The Countries:-
 United States Of America:
A. Whistleblowers Protection Act, 1989
B. The Sarbanes –Oxley Act(SOX)
C. False Claims Act
 United Kingdom :
A. The Public Interest Disclosure Act ,1998
Where as the Whistleblower is considered as a negative
phenomenon and is discouraged in Australia ,
Germany, Malaysia, and
South- Africa .They considered as a sin to tattle on
colleagues. Some considered them as Heroes (selfless
Martyrs) and others as Traitors (Snitches)

7. Whistleblowers lost their Life in
India
Name of the
whistleblower
Designation Murdered
by
year case state
Shanmughan
Manjunath
Marketting
Manager in
IOC
Oil Mafia 2005 Check Petrol
Adulteration
U.P
Narendra
kumar
I.P.S Morena
2009
Mining
Mafia
March
2012
Case relating
to Corruption
Mining
M.P
Sanjiv Bhat I.P.S Gujarat Politicians Nov,20
13
2002,Gujarat
roit
Gujarat
Jayasreee Housewife Govt. officials
of taking
bribery &
kickbacks
Karnatak
a

8. Lalita Mehta Indian
RTI
activist
No of
persons
14th
May
Expose
scams in
National
Rural
Employeme
nt
Guarantee
ACT
Jharka
nd
Shashindhar
Mishra
Indian
RTI
activist
Unknown
assailmen
ts
14th feb
2010
Expose
Corruption at
the
panchayat
and Block
level
Bihar
Avijit Misra Indian
Army
Colonel
From
W.B
Unknown April
2012
Blowing the
whistle over
the
protection in
the unit
W.B

9. LEGAL HISTORY IN INDIA :-
In ancient India the Whistleblower concept was in existence
and kautilya was the one who proposed it and legal form it
took place in the year 1993
 A bill for the protection of whistleblower was first initiated
in the year 1993 by N.Vittal ( then the chief Vigilance
Commissioner)
 In December 2001 Law Commission recommended in order
to eliminate corruption and a law to protect the
whistleblowers and submitted its report on Public Interest
Disclosure Bill to Arun Jaitley
 In january 2003 the Draft of the Public Interest
Disclosure(Protection of Informers ) bill 2002 was
circulated
 Satyendra Dubey outrage led to the demand of the
enactement of the Whistleblower’s Bill

10. Satyendra Dubey Case:-
 A 31year old IIT-Kanpur Civil Engineering Graduate,
Employee of the National Highway Authority Of India
 Assigned prime ministers pet project – the Golden
Quadilateral to connect the four corners of India
(Delhi, Mumbai,Kolkatta & Chennai)
 Was posted at Koderma, Jharkhand as project director
and would be in charge of relaesing funds for the
under construction highway .Rampant subletting to
petty contractors lacked the technical ability to work on
this mega project.
 Everyone from the govt. engineers to M.N.C companies
loot of the public money, wrote a letter to his boss NHAI
project Directors S.K Soni and Satish Kapoor there was
no action, wrote a letter to Prime Minister . IN 2003
Dubey was found dead in Gaya

11. In 2004 Supreme Court directed that the machinery be
put in a place for acting on the complainants from the
Whistleblowers till a law is enacted. Govt of India
notified a resolution to enable Central Vigilance
Commission .
 In 2006 The Public Service Bill 2006 (draft) stated that
with in 6 months of the commencement of the act , the
Govt must put in to the place mechanism to provide
protection to the Whistleblowers
 In 2007, the report of the 2nd Administrative Reform
Commission also recommend that a specific law be
enacted to protect the Whistleblowers.
 In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and
Protection of person making the Disclosure Bill,2010
was introduced in the Loksabha . The bill was approved
by the cabinet in june 2011.

12.  Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons
making the Disclosure Bill 2010 was renamed as the
Whistleblower Protection Bill 2011 by Standing
committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and
Justices
 Whistleblower Protection 2011 was passed on loksabha
on 27th december 2011, Bill was introduced in
Rajyasabha on 21st feb 2014, received the presidents
assent on 9th May 2014
 30 sections divided in to Seven chapters.
 In the era of transparency , Accountability and
participation in the governance of the country , we
need a system, a society where a person can do it’s duty
with out fear and head held high .

13. The Whistleblower Protections
Act 2011
 The act of the parliament of india which provides the mechanisms
to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by the public
servant and also protect anyone who exposes alleged wrong doing
in the government bodies , projects and offices . The wrong doing
may take the form of fraud , corruption or mismanagement . Act
was approved by the Cabinet of India as a part of drive to eliminate
corruption in the country’s bureaucracy
 Legislation to address Corruption in Public Office , enforce
standards and accountability in Judiciary and protect the
Whistleblower
 The complaints under this act can be made by any public servant,
any other persons and NGO’s but there is no provision for
anonymous complaints

14. What can you blow the whistle about:-
Under this act you can file Complaints against public
servants (except judges of SC & HC)relating to the
actual commission or attempt to commit ,-
1. An offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
1988;
2. Wilful misuse of power or willful misuse of Discretion
by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the
Govt or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the
public servant (public servant as defined under PCA)
or to any third party;
3. A criminal offence.

15. Indias Whistle blowers Protection Act 2011:-
Chapter I(section 1 -3) along with the terms define “competent
authority”, “disclosure” and the “public servant “. Interestingly the
term victimization (against which the bill is supposed to safeguard
)has not been defined except for an implied reference in section
10(1) as by the initiation by any proceedings or otherwise whereas
the contemporary foreign legislation in U.S.A, U.K and Canada
provides an extensive definition of the term. Disclosure is a
complaint relating to the commision or an attempt to commit a
criminal offences , offences under Prevention of Corruption Act
1988 and wilful misuse of power or discretion causing either
demonstrable loss to the govt. or demonstrable gain to the public
servant or the third party.
Chapter II (section -4 public interest disclosure requirements) lays
down that the requirement of the public interest disclosure and it’s
exception “public interest Disclosure” is any disclosure made
under this act. Only specific exception is special protection group.
No action will be taken on any anonymous complaint irrespective
of significance of disclosure.

16.  Chapter III( section 5 &6) prescribes the manner in
which inquiry regarding disclosure should be
conducted. It has given the discretion of revealing the
identity of the complainant to the competent authority
for the purpose of seeking comments , explanations,
reportsfrom the head of the concerned departement or
organization. But the head of the department cannot
reveal the identity of the complainant under any
circumstances . In sufficient grounds for inquiry will
result in closure of the matter by the competent
authority. Competent authority shall also not take note
of any disclosure to the extent that it seeks to re-open
any issue or case already settled. It shall not entertain
any disclosure regarding which the inquiry has already
been launched under Public Servants Inquiry Act 1850
and the Commission of the Inquiry act 1952.
Timeperiod for the disclosure is 5 to 7 years.

17.  Primary regarding section 6(4) suggests that the act has
been given an overriding effect over Official Secrets Act
,1923 which will prevent public servant from taking the
shelter of obligation to maintain secrecy under the provision
of the said act while providing any information or document
regarding disclosure provided that such information or
document does not jeopardise the interest of the integrity ,
soverignity of the country its security and public order.
 Chapter 5( section 11-14,safeguard against victimisation)
lays down the provision for the protection of whistleblower
against victimization due to disclosure and states that a
competent authority may on receipt of the application
regarding victimization or its apprehension direct the
concerned public authority to direct and prevent
victimization. Protection is extended to complainant , pubic
servant, witnesses and other persons rendering assistance in
inquiry under section11 . It is important to note that the act
distinguishes safeguard against the victimization

18.  Sixth chapter( section 15 -22, offences &penalties)
prescribes penalties for various offences including
penalty for frivilous disclosure that is imprisonment up
to two years and fine up to 30,000 and penalty for
revealing identity of the complainant which is
imprisonment up to five years and fine up to Rs.
50,000.
 The competent authority shall prepare a consolidated
annual report of the performance of its activities and
forwarded it to the central govt or state govt under
section 22 , chapter seven.(section 23 -31,
Miscellenious)

19. A Comparison with the International Standard :-
COVERED PARTIALLY
COVERED
NOT COVERED
Public interest
Disclosure must include
wrong doings commited
by Ministers except P.M
Provide the
whistleblower a safe
alternative to silence.
Public interst must cover
wrong doing in the
private sctor
Whistleblowers in the
public sector including
the members of the
armed forces and
intelligence service and
employees of private
sector
Public interest
Disclosure must include
all bonafide warnings of
various types of
unlawful acts including
all serious Human Rights
Violation
Issues in employement ,
law relating to the
protection of
Whistleblower against
retaliatory action( not
codified)
The whistleblowers
identity must not be
disclosed with out
his/her identity
Issues in criminal law
and procedure for
protecting the whistle
blower and other
witnesses against
criminal prosecution for
defamation
Issue in relation to media
law –protection of
journalistic sources must
be codified

20. Consequences for
acquisition made in
bad faith
Whistle blowers must
be informed about
the progress of
investigation and
provide a final report
copy and the
recommendation of
corrective action
Whistleblower must
be provided with
Counseling and
Guidance
The law must be
monitored and
evaluated at regular
intervals by the
independent bodies
The whistle blower
believing it to be true
disclose the fact in
good faith later on
investigation it turned
out to be false, but no
action to be taken on.

21. The WhistleBlowers Protection(
Amendement) Bill, 2015:-
The Whistleblowers Protection (Amendement) bill was
taken up for consideration and parliament, the
amendements agreed with a view to strengthening the
safeguards against Disclosure which may prejudicially
affect the soverignity and integrity of the country,
security of the state etc and to remove certain drafting
errors and errors in the cross referencing of clauses
where formulated. However since it become pertinent
to amend the said act. The salient features of the bill
are:-
 To ensure that the act incorporate necessary provisions
aimed at strengthening safeguard against the disclosure
which may prejudicially affect the soverignity
&/integrity of the country (section 4,5 &8)

22. Amendement in section 4: disclose the prejudicially affecting
the sovereignty and integrity of India ,the security, strategy,
the scientific or economic interest of the state, relation with
the foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence etc these
amendments have been modeled on the provisions of
subsection (1) of section 8 of the Right To Information act,
2005.
Amendement in section 5 : provides that the competent
authority shall not inquire in to any public interest
disclosure which involves information of the nature
specified in the amended section 4.
Amendement in section 8: provides that no person shall be
required to furnish any information or answer any question
or produce any document or render any other assistance in
an inquiry under the said act if the same is likely to result in
the disclosure of any information of the nature specified in
the amended section 4
Amendement to correct drafting errors in the said act have also
been proposed.

23. Short comings:-
 Bill does not permit a whistleblower to complain about acts
of corruption, wilful abuse of power or wilful misue of
discretion or offences commited by the Primeminister
(centre) or chief ministers (in the states)
 Lokpal (National Level Apex Anti- corruption and Grievance
Redress Agency) establlished under The Lokpal and
Lokayuktaa Act 2013 is not menitioned as a competent
authority.
 Under the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act complaints of
corruption allegedly commited by officers of the three elite
All India Services must be made to the Lokpal, The C.V.C
cannot inquire in to such complaints without the direction
of lokpal
 The bill does not recognise whistleblowing against
Humanrights violations and unlawful acts affecting the
Environment , Public Health and Safety as valid

24.  The bill does not specify for inquiring in to complaints
of corruption or offences done by the lower judiciary as
the inquiry procedure which will be adopter by other
competent authority which is in chapter 3 of the bill is
not suitable for the lower judiciary, Inquiring in to the
actions of corruptions of judges and judicial officers
require the permission of the high court
 There is no mention of the case if the inquiry did not
finish with in 3 months
 The whistleblower does not permit a whistleblowerto
publicise the allegations of wrong doingand the related
facts through the media when the authorities fail to
take adequate action on a complaint

25. Conclusion:-
 India’s Whistleblowers Act is unique in the world as it recognises any
individual or any N.G.O as a whistleblower, this means RTI activist,
anti-corruption crusades and Human Right Defenders can be
potential Whistleblowers
 But The WhistleBlowers Protection Act,2011 and The WhistleBlowers
Protection (Amendment ) Bill 2015 does not do adequate justice to an
important principle that defines Indias vision as a polity aspiring to
become a responsible democracy in the world
 National motto :-” Sathyameva Jayate” which translates as “ truth alone
triumphs “. For attaining this principle cooruption should be washed
away.
 whistleBlower enables to make disclosure of wrong doing and
protecting them are the stated principles of bill but the national motto
cannot be realized unless the laccunae is corrected, and india needs a
much stronger law to protect WhistleBlower.
 Whistleblowing could be effective only if it is followed seriously and
sincerely

26. THINK :-
“ Our Lives begin to end the day
we become silent about the
things that matters “.
Martin Luther King Jr