THE PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR

THE PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR

INTRODUCTION

Whistleblowers in the public sector play a critical role in promoting transparency and accountability. They expose illegal acts that are harmful to the public interest, such as tax evasion, gross mismanagement, corruption, and collaboration. They provide "early warning signs" of potential liabilities for government agencies, allowing them to avoid or reduce harm to their particular missions. These workers' activities help save billions of dollars in public funding, which may instead be channeled to productive sectors that expand the economy, improve working conditions for public servants, and assure the efficient delivery of public services. Regarding health, safety, and the environment, public-sector whistleblowing can save lives. On the other hand, whistleblowers frequently jeopardize their employment, freedom, or even their own lives by providing relevant data. Approximately 61% of employees who report wrongdoing face retaliation.

UNDERSTANDING WHISTLE-BLOWING

Whistleblowing essentially means raising an alert about anything incorrect within or outside the organization that affects the interests of many people. One creates noise solely to alert others to wrongdoing or misappropriation. The intention of raising the alert should not be to cause panic, but rather to raise the alarm. It is sometimes regarded as extremely dangerous due to the types of disclosures made. Before raising an alarm, it is critical for a whistleblower to ensure that certain factors are considered. A whistleblower must ensure that the information he or she has is accurate and not based on speculations.

WHISTLE-BLOWING POLICY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA

The only legislation dealing with the protection of whistle-blowers in India is:

Whistleblowers Protection Act of 2014 (Whistleblower Protection Act). This Act establishes a legal framework for reporting illegal, unethical, or illegitimate practices by members of an organization. The Act's scope, however, is confined to public servants and public sector undertakings. Please keep in mind that, as of the time of writing, despite being passed by both houses of the Indian parliament, the Whistleblower Protection Act had not yet been enacted by the central government; and the Companies Act 2013 (Companies Act), which requires the incorporation of a whistleblower policy, but primarily by listed companies.

There are currently no particular laws dealing with whistleblower protection that apply to private, unlisted enterprises, or unincorporated entities and their employees. Employers are permitted to develop and implement a whistleblower policy to encourage employees (or anyone else) to expose issues without fear of retaliation, discrimination, or economic or other disadvantages. As a result, the whistleblowing system for private enterprises remains mostly discretionary and policy-driven.

India has yet to pass legislation to increase whistleblower protection across sectors or levels of government, as well as to develop suitable secure routes or systems to allow whistleblowers to report without fear of disclosure, reprisal, or victimization.

WHISTLE-BLOWING AND PUBLIC-SECTOR WORKERS

Although whistleblowers exist in many sectors, public servants have more knowledge about the institutional mechanisms for receiving and processing complaints of corruption but are also the most vulnerable in the absence of appropriate protection systems for reporting acts of corruption. Their position within government institutions exposes them to internal misconduct which may damage an organization's reputation and performance" and allows them to report problems. It can, however, expose them to unfair outcomes if they speak up.

Public officials are required to keep the information they receive confidentially. They also have a general obligation to report any oddities they come across while working. This is a fiduciary duty since they operate on behalf of taxpayers who fund public services, not the government organization that employs them.  They must report unethical behavior that affects the organization's mission under this duty, which is frequently outlined in codes of ethics. In turn, public employers must respect the human rights of their employees.

PROBLEMS FACED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS

Whistleblowers are disliked by the government, corporations, and even society to some level, with some countries, even referring to them as "traitors." The story of Wikileaks' Julian Assange and Edward Snowden exemplifies this idea.

Whistleblowers face legal action, criminal accusations, social disgrace, and the possibility of being fired from any position, office, or job.

Character assassination, an official reprimand, and difficult legal processes are all examples of vindictive strategies used to make an individual's work more difficult and/or insignificant.

Whistleblowers are nonetheless in a precarious position, despite the high fines, because whistleblower cases generally contain a complex combination of facts and job history.

JUSTIFICATION

Section 3 of the Act states that any public servant or another individual, including a non-governmental organization, may make a public interest disclosure to a Competent Authority.

What is important under this Act is the term "Public Interest Disclosure," which is defined as any disclosure made before the Competent Authority by a public servant or any other person, including any non-governmental organization, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in the public interest. Any disclosure made under this Act shall be treated as public interest disclosure for the purposes of this Act and shall be made before the Competent Authority, with the complaint being received by such authority as the Competent Authority may specify by regulations.

The name of the Act makes it very apparent that the goal of this act is to protect those who make public interest disclosures or have assisted in such issues from potential victimization or harassment, and the Central Government is required to provide such protection. The Competent Authority has been given the authority to issue adequate guidance to the competent authorities for the protection of the complainant or witness, either on the complainant's request or based on its own knowledge. It can also order that the public employee who made the revelation be restored in his old position. Unless it determines otherwise or is ordered by a court, the Vigilance Commission must secure the complainant's identity and relevant documentation. Furthermore, the Commission has the authority to issue interim orders to prevent any act of corruption from continuing during the investigation.

If any person is being victimized or is likely to be victimized because he or she filed a complaint, made a disclosure, or assisted in an investigation, he or she may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimized.

SUGGESTION

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2014 attempts to protect whistleblowers against victimization, although the act fails to penalize such behavior. Down with that, an amendment bill to the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 2015, stating that whistleblowers should not be allowed to reveal any confidential documents under the Official Secrets Act, of 1923, even if the purpose is to disclose acts of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal activities. The passage of such a bill would undermine the entire purpose of the 2014 act, and hence the bill must be rejected. Employees, directors, and stakeholders of organizations should all work together to ensure the successful implementation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. Transparency and honesty should be practiced in corporate governance to reduce fraud and illicit operations.

The laws and legislation for whistleblower protection are rigorous, but proper implementation, as well as specific revisions linked to penalizing those who victimize whistleblowers, should be present. Furthermore, proper implementation is based on the sincerity of businesses and organizations. Given the importance of whistleblowers in our society, the whistleblower protection mechanism should be enhanced, followed by the integrity of democracy, which must be protected and recognized.

CONCLUSION

The Whistleblowers Protection Act of India was passed in 2011. The act is still not being implemented correctly at the executive level. This is due to a lack of political will. There are various provisions in the Act that can readily discourage someone from becoming a whistleblower. Strict consequences for whistleblower failure are one of them. If the competent authority is unable to substantiate the claims against the wrongdoer, the regulations make it simple for public authorities to put the whistleblower in a bind.

For public processes to succeed, the correct mindset and respect are required. The fact that India is not yet an OECD member reflects the slackness of our protection laws. There is a need to be more cautious in the implementation of public money expenditure, and more accountability in the system is required.

REFERENCES

Section 3 (i), Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014.

Legal Service India- Protection of Whistle Blowers - A Socio-Legal Perspective

Whistle Blowers Protection in India: A Shaky Start

Wikipedia- Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011

Prepp- Whistleblowers Protection Act

.

.

THANK YOU