EDITORIALS

Whistling in the Wind?

An alert citizenry is pivotal for democracy.
ccountability of institutions is one cornerstone of a democracy. Without accountability by institutions and on the part of those who man these institutions the elected representatives and appointed ofcials no society can claim to be fully democratic. Accountability must also extend to the private sector, especially the corporate sector which commands large resources and wields enormous inuence. There are a number of mechanisms, processes and rules to ensure accountability. One of them is providing protection to whistle-blowers the individuals who risk their jobs and sometimes their personal safety as well to disclose an injustice or a violation of the law that affects public and national interest. Providing public services efciently, punctually and without seeking bribes is another feature of accountable institutions. The Lok Sabha had passed the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 a couple of years ago, but it has not become law since a similar legislation is yet to be passed by the Rajya Sabha. The Right of Citizens for Time-bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Their Grievances Bill, 2011 has got the union cabinets nod but is yet to be tabled in Parliament. Given the ongoing turmoil in Parliament ahead of the last week of the 15th Lok Sabha, there is a big question mark over whether either or both bills will be approved, though they have been slated for the current session. The third legal pillar in the accountability regime the Lokpal Act was passed on 18 December 2013. When the Right to Information (RTI) Act was enacted in 2005 its impact was felt even in the most poorly administered states. Over the years however there have been determined attempts by the bureaucracy, backed by political interests, to dilute its provisions and effect, and a number of RTI activists have even been brutally assaulted and some even murdered for their active efforts to extract information. Even the passage of the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 is unlikely to protect these activists. The bill has inadequacies in its denition of victimisation of the informant, it covers only central government employees (not even state government ones), there is no punishment proposed for those who victimise the whistle-blower despite the Administrative Reforms Commissions recommendation to do so and it proposes protection only to those who expose nancial corruption leaving aside the other forms of corruption. It is a fallacy to assume that fraud and corruption within private corporate entities do not affect the public interest. In the advanced 8

capitalist countries, some major improvements in public health have come consequent to whistle-blowing acts by employees of powerful multinational companies. But private bodies and corporate entities will not be covered by the Indian law. Though the Companies Act 2013 does mandate the establishment of a vigil mechanism to report concerns about the functioning of listed companies, the absence of legal protection for those who do report such actions will render it ineffective. The Right of Citizens for Time-bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Their Grievances Bill proposes that every public authority publish a citizens charter which will detail the services with timelines for delivery and appoint grievance redressal ofcers (GRO). Citizens grievances are to be handled within 30 days and a ne will be levied on the GRO or the ofcial concerned in the event of her failing to do so. There are shortcomings in this legislation as well, mainly about overlap. Many states have their own laws and state public services cannot be covered by a central law. Major public welfare schemes too have redressal mechanisms. And a number of public authorities and public sector companies are covered by the consumer courts and ombudsmen. In this thicket the citizen may well nd herself passed around between different bodies. A study in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar published by Accountability Initiative points out that the problems concerned with services delivery are complex and require a diversity of solutions. And that effective implementation of a law on time-bound delivery of services depends on a broad range of measures involving political and managerial accountability. It is nobodys contention that the passage of these two bills and the Lokpal Act will usher in integrity and transparency. That all three legislations are imperfect and need discussion and repair is accepted in many quarters. Activists are pressing for their passage on the something is better than nothing principle. The Indian publics cynicism about and suspicion of politicians and bureaucrats runs deep. Whistle-blowers whether bureaucrats or citizens in other elds are held up as heroes by the media. The fear of reprisal and victimisation in the absence of protection mechanisms can be addressed to some extent by a comprehensive legislation. An informed and aware electorate that feels empowered to point out the wrongs and irregularities is obviously crucial for a healthy functioning of Indias democracy.
February 22, 2014 vol xlix no 8
EPW Economic & Political Weekly