Whistleblowers India


A whistleblower’s dilemma

Posted by ekavi on July 7, 2006

A whistleblower’s dilemma

The identity of those who expose corruption might be revealed under the Right to Information Act

N Vittal


Corruption is the cancer of public life today. There is a universal growing recognition that corruption is anti-economic development, anti-poor and anti-national.

At last there are some systematic efforts being made to tackle the issue of corruption. The directive by the Supreme Court that candidates standing for election will have to declare details of their criminal record, their wealth and educational qualification has injected an element of transparency in public life. The passing of the Right to Information Act  is hailed as a major step to empowering civil society and making the government more accountable.

Sunshine is the antidote for corruption and the more transparent public organisations become, there will be lesser scope for corruption.

Equally important is the role played by

people within a corrupt organisation in exposing corruption. These people are taking a great risk by exposing corruption in their organisations. Satyendra Dubey’s name flashes to mind readily. He was a sincere whistleblower in the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and had to pay a heavy price — his life.

This moved the Supreme Court to issue a directive to the CVC saying that action must be taken to protect whistleblowers.

In fact, when I was CVC, I moved the Law Commission of India to draft a Whistleblowers’ Act, which was ultimately called the Public Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. Since 2002, when I left office, this bill is pending as the government has not yet made a decision.

Whistleblowers normally face a lot of problems in their careers. By exposing corruption among their superiors, they face the possibility of direct or indirect punishment. This could be in the form of lack of advancement and promotions ultimately leading to their careers failing.

The Whistleblowers’ Act at least protects the career interest of the whistleblowers and their identity. But a more important issue is the risk whistleblowers face in terms of physical harm. There is no provision for providing physical protection to them. That is the first part of the dilemma which whistleblowers in our country face.

The second aspect of the dilemma faced by whistleblowers is paradoxically because of the Right to Information Act! I recently learnt about an employee of a government of India public sector enterprise who tried to expose corruption amongst his superiors. He approached the chief vigilance officer of the organisation. The vigilance officer told him that while he may initiate action on his complaint, his identity as a whistleblower could not be protected because this may have to be revealed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Here we see a classic example of the path to hell being paved with good intentions. In the case of whistleblowers who expose cases of corruption, should their identity also be revealed under the Right to Information Act? The only advice I can give is that the whistleblower should approach the CVC directly and make his case. CVC is under the Supreme Court’s directive to protect the identity of whistleblowers thanks to the tragic case of Satyendra Dubey.

But how many will be able to approach the CVC? This is the dilemma which every whistleblower in the country today faces. If we really want to make a breakthrough in tackling corruption and at the same time get the full benefits of both the Whistleblowers’ Act as well as the Right to Information Act, a practical solution will have to be found.

The simple solution would be to make a provision in the Right to Information Act

itself that the identity of whistleblowers will not be  revealed under the Act. This is definitely a problem that can be resolved. Where there is a will there is a way. Do we have the will to fight corruption?

•  In the last decade, N Vittal, the former CVC emerged as the voice of our collective conscience. This is his weekly take on public life in India


3 Responses to “A whistleblower’s dilemma”

  1. GaviniVN said


    It is the order of the day that the retired officials speak sane words, but have no time for such things while on active service. The case in example is that the CVC issued a circular No.3(v)/99/10 d/d 01.12.99, on EFFECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF THE CORRUPT THROUGH TRAPS. It’s Para 4(i), worked as a boon to the organization and its CVO, to use like a BRAHMASHTRA on HOUSEHOLD SPARROW), but it became a bane, to the whistle blowers, as explained in his above article. I give the relevant extract of his circular :-

    “– In every organisation, those who are corrupt are well known. The Disciplinary Authorities and the CVOs as well as those who are hurt by such corrupt persons can arrange for traps against such public servants. The local police or CBI can be contacted for arranging the trap.”—-

    I complained on the corrupt practices of our CVO to the Management, with all documentary evidences in 2001. The CVO pressurised me with several memos to withdraw the complaint or else serious action would be taken against me. I did not obey his illegal orders. He wrote a DO letter to me to withdraw the complaint in Jan 02 and reminded on 26.3.02. I did not budge. He got foisted a false trap case on 25.4.02 against me with the help of CBI. He got confirmation on telephone on 26.4.02, and processed my file for suspension on 29.4.02 and issued suspension orders on 29.4.02.(27 & 28.4.02 Sat&Sundays). And he got me dismissed from services on 29.10.07, pending disposal of the case. He filed a DA case also, which is being tried in Chennai, against me and my family members, living in Hyderabad.

    The managedment believed his story that a junior officer (me) complaining against a senior officer (CVO) amount to insubordination and indiscipline. He failed in his all efforts to withdraw the complaint against him, and used the CVC circular Para 4(i)state above, against me, and my position as Complainant, is stated above.

    Mr.N Vittal may kindly re-read the circular now. It stinks and exposes his real intent. His above article is pure as snow.

    Vittal Sir, today a conductor or peon is dismissed from service for not issueing a Rs 2/- fare ticket, and for taking a Rs.10/- as mamool, respectively. But the the people in high places loot the nation with crores of rupees do it freely without any fear. The CVC/CBI/Police look the other way. Why?

    You have not issued any guidelines when the CVO/VIG officials trample the CVC guidelines/manuals/rules etc. You strengthened them. What use you speak now for whistle blowers? That too, when you are out of power? Kindly do some soul searching and kindly with your good offices, may get the above contents removed from the circular.

    That would be a great help for whistle blowers.

    Thank you.

    An oppressed and victimised whistle blower.

    Gavini VN

  2. […] A whistleblower’s dilemma […]

  3. John Gray said

    We all support in this case .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: