EDITORIALS
between his declaration of victory in Iraq and the launch of direct
negotiations shortly afterwards, between Israel and the quisling
Palestine regime of Mahmoud Abbas. Like all previous efforts by
the US to bring the Zionist entity to some semblance of accommo-
dation with the Palestinian people, this too is destined to fail.
Israel simply does not feel any sense of accountability for the
Will Truth Prevail?
In its current form, the whistle-blowers bill will simply not do.
T
he Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons
Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010 was recently tabled in the
Lok Sabha. The Law Commission of India had first drafted
a bill on providing protection to whistle-blowers in 2001. Since
then the murder of two whistle-blowers (Satyendra Dubey in
2003 and Manjunath Shanmugham in 2007) brought the issue
of the vulnerability of those who expose corruption into public
focus. Following a Supreme Court order in 2004, the government
issued the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers
Resolution. Since this resolution is not sufficient to provide
statutory protection to people who report corruption, a law was
required to provide effective protection to those who expose
corruption and wrongdoing.
Everywhere in the world whistle-blowers have to be unusually
committed and unafraid of risks, but strong protection laws go a
long way in reassuring them of safety. However, given the
endemic proportions of corruption in public life in India and
corruption-related violence (eight Right to Information (RTI)
activists have been murdered since January this year), the moot
point is how far it will be possible to implement the provisions of
the proposed legislation and how far the infrastructure available
will support effective implementation.
The bill covers acts of corruption or wilful misuse of power
by public servants belonging to the central and state govern-
ments or any corporations, societies, local bodies and categories
under their jurisdiction. It provides for adequate protection
to public servants or citizens reporting such corruption and
a regular mechanism to encourage them to disclose such acts.
It prevents victimisation of such complainants, and empowers
the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) or the designated com-
petent authorityto penalise those who reveal their identity. The
CVC which is the nodal agency in all such cases will have the
powers of a civil court. It also enjoins punishment for false or
frivolous complaints.
Protecting the identity of whistle-blowers is always very
difficult and in the past few years the United States has witnessed
high-profile cases of whistle-blowers who have exposed illegal
acts in large corporations being subjected to harassment. Pro-
tection will require an exceptionally strong legal help mecha-
nism, a committed and sensitive investigative agency and strong
support systems. In the bill introduced in Parliament, the rele-
vant clause 10 only says that in case of victimisation the compe-
tent authority shall take action as deemed fit, direct the
8 september 11, 2010 vol xlv no 37 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
millions of refugees it created while claiming its supposed na-
tional patrimony in Palestine. And the US, after creating an esti-
mated four million refugees from Iraq the best of the countrys
middle-class and intelligentsia feels little remorse that it was
tweaked into a foreordained military disaster, to serve the strate-
gic ambitions of a recalcitrant ally.
concerned government authorities (including police) to ensure
protection and that these directions will be binding. Nothing is
spelt out and clearly everything is left to the discretion of the
concerned agencies.
The whistle-blowers bill does not cover the private sector,
concerned as it is with only central and state governments. There
is no reason why the private sector should be left out of the
purview of the bill. Also, any disclosure of corruption made five
years after the corrupt act was allegedly done will not be investi-
gated. This provision is rather baffling and has the potential to
encourage fudging of dates and backdating of documents.
Since the CVC has no investigative mechanism of its own, the
bill envisages that a public authority (against whom a disclosure
is made and to whom the CVC sends an inquiry) will create an
appropriate machinery to deal with the inquiry which the CVC
is empowered to superintend. The CVC can also take the assistance
of police authorities and the Central Bureau of Investigation for
making inquiries. Both these agencies are periodically mired in
controversies and are accused of being vulnerable to pressures
from the ruling political establishment.
The fight against corruption has many ramifications and
has to be carried out on many fronts. The RTI Act has been a
particularly effective one not only because it is a strong piece of
legislation but also because RTI activists across the country are a
vigilant lot. In the US which has perhaps seen the most high-
profile whistle-blowing cases than those of any other country
disclosures of corruption are covered by a number of laws
which are constantly being revised to give them more teeth. For
example, the US Whistleblowers Protection Act, 1989 to protect
federal employees making disclosures was amended in 1994 and
an Office of Special Counsel was set up to aid them and prevent
victimisation. After the Enron collapse, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 was passed giving wide legal protection to disclosures in
publicly traded companies, providing for exemplary punishment
to anyone retaliating and placing a deadline for completion
of investigation.
The Public Interest Disclosure Bill needs to be vigorously
debated in the public and thoroughly revised so as to give it more
teeth lest it becomes yet another cosmetic exercise. How may the
risk involved in blowing-the-whistle be significantly reduced?
How best may the anonymity of the whistle-blower be scrupu-
lously maintained? How may the whistle-blower be adequately
protected against retaliatory action?