Consolation prize
The 15th Parliament has run its term highlighted by the passage of a bill to divide Andhra Pradesh in the upper house last Friday after the lower house adopted it the day before. But amid the din and disruption over that venture, another bill slipped through to become the first law ever to protect informants of official corruption – an endeavour that has cost life, limbs or careers of some 30 people in two decades. As the ruckus in the houses prevented discussion on this much-vaunted Whistleblowers Protection Bill, it was passed without changes, but also without a clutch of accompanying anti-corruption bills that the government wanted waved through. Families of the silenced whistleblowers who held a candlelight demonstration in Delhi three weekends ago and met ruling and opposition politicians to press for the passage of the bill which was cleared by the lower house in 2011, can feel relieved their campaign bore fruit, although doubtful how effective the act will be.
The Whistleblowers Act 2014 creates a legal framework to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption involving all government officials except those serving in Jammu and Kashmir, in the armed forces and in the Prime Minister’s Office. It replaces a 2004 resolution under which the Central Vigilance Commission receives, investigates and acts on complaints to now also guarantee “adequate protection to persons reporting corruption or wilful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable loss to the government or demonstrable gain to the public servant or any third party.” In as much, the definition of a disclosure expected of a whistleblower has also been written in. But amendments to remove vagueness on what constitutes victimisation of the whistleblower and to afford him/her deserved anonymity were missed. The Act disallows anonymous complaints and permits the CVC, under certain circumstances, to disclose the complainants’ identity to the head of the government department under scrutiny.
The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission in 2007 had recommended: “Whistleblowers exposing false claims, fraud or corruption should be protected by ensuring confidentiality and anonymity, protection from victimisation in career, and other administrative measures to prevent bodily harm and harassment.” These are left to interpretation in the Act. While the ARC’s prescription that “acts of harassment or victimisation of or retaliation against, a whistleblower should be criminal offences with substantial penalty and sentence” are in, the Act provides for penalising the whistleblower if the complaint is found to be frivolous and vexatious. What is frivolous and for whom is it vexatious, are questions for interpretation, just as the punishment for victimising complainants are. Worse, the Act doesn’t hold the CVC accountable for delayed response to a complaint or for failing to act altogether.
No one in authority likes being challenged and the urge to retaliate is natural. But in civil society where rule of law is supreme, all citizens are equal claimants to justice. Satyendra Dubey, a young civil engineer with the National Highways Authority was killed in November 2003 for exposing corruption, because his identity was leaked from the PMO and he had no recourse to protection. Exempting the highest office of the land or keeping the CVC instead of the more powerful Lokpal/Lokayukta as the “competent authority” for whistleblower complaints, are but reflections of the sense of purpose of our elected representatives who found no time to pass such a bill in over a decade – until Rahul Gandhi became its champion. Now what’s awaited is whether the other anti-corruption bills in the parliamentary cold storage can be thawed out and delivered as ordinances after Parliament is prorogued this week.
The Whistleblowers Act 2014 creates a legal framework to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption involving all government officials except those serving in Jammu and Kashmir, in the armed forces and in the Prime Minister’s Office
