The **Whistleblower Policy**

The **Whistleblower Policy** in India has evolved due to high-profile cases of

whistleblower retaliation, public outrage, and subsequent government action.
The journey towards formal whistleblower protections was notably influenced
by tragic incidents that revealed the risks whistleblowers faced. This history
paved the way for the **Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014** and various
guidelines for private sector companies, particularly in sectors regulated by
SEBI and the Companies Act, 2013.

### Historical Background of Whistleblower Protections in India

1. **Early Whistleblower Cases in India**:
- **Satyendra Dubey Case (2003)**: The murder of Satyendra Dubey, an
engineer with the National Highways Authority of India, is a landmark case in
the whistleblower movement in India. Dubey reported corruption related to
the Golden Quadrilateral highway project, writing directly to the Prime
Minister’s Office. However, his identity was leaked, and he was subsequently
murdered. This case drew national attention to the dangers faced by
whistleblowers and highlighted the need for protection against retaliation.
- **Manjunath Shanmugam Case (2005)**: Manjunath, an officer with the
Indian Oil Corporation, was killed for exposing fuel adulteration in Uttar
Pradesh. His murder, like Dubey’s, intensified calls for legal safeguards for
those who expose unethical practices and corruption, leading to widespread
public and media outrage.
2. **Legislative Push for Whistleblower Protection**:
- In response to these cases and growing public demand, the government
proposed the **Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers
Resolution (PIDPIR)** in 2004, which designated the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC) as the nodal agency for whistleblower complaints.
- Subsequently, the **Whistle Blowers Protection Bill** was introduced in
Parliament in 2011. The Bill aimed to protect individuals making public
interest disclosures related to corruption, abuse of power, or criminal offenses
by public servants. Despite this, the Bill took time to become law, passing
only in 2014.
3. **Enactment of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014**:
- The **Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014** came into force to address
the need for a structured legal framework for whistleblower protections. The
Act allows any person to report acts of corruption, misuse of power, or
criminal offenses within the public sector. It also provides certain safeguards
to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
 - However, certain proposed amendments in 2015 sought to limit
disclosures under the Act. The amendments intended to restrict disclosures
concerning national security and some other sensitive areas, but they remain
pending, which has limited the full operationalization of the Act.

### Key Features of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014

- **Disclosure of Public Interest Information**: Individuals can report
corruption, abuse of power, or criminal offenses within government bodies.
- **Protection Against Retaliation**: Whistleblowers are provided with
safeguards against victimization, including protection of their identity.
- **Confidentiality of Whistleblower Identity**: Authorities must maintain
the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity, subject to certain
exceptions.
- **Complaint Mechanism**: Reports are made to a competent authority,
typically the Central or State Vigilance Commissions, which then investigate
the claims.
### Whistleblower Policies in the Corporate Sector
In addition to the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, the Companies Act, 2013,
and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regulations mandate
whistleblower protections for listed companies:
- **Companies Act, 2013**:
- **Section 177** of the Companies Act requires certain companies to
establish a **vigil mechanism** to address complaints from directors and
employees. This mechanism acts as a channel for whistleblowers to report
concerns without fear of retaliation.
- The audit committee oversees the vigil mechanism, which should ideally
ensure that complaints are managed transparently.
- **SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations,
2015**:
- SEBI mandates that listed companies establish a whistleblower policy as
part of their corporate governance practices, encouraging employees to report
unethical practices.
- These regulations promote transparency and ensure that whistleblowers
are protected from adverse actions by employers.
1. **K.M. Abraham v. SEBI (2011)**:
- This case involved a whistleblower in SEBI who faced retaliation after
exposing misconduct within the organization. The court directed SEBI to
protect the whistleblower and ensure that his complaints were investigated
independently.
- This case underscored the need for stringent mechanisms within
regulatory bodies to protect whistleblowers and take their complaints
seriously.
2. **ICICI Bank Case (2018)**:
- A whistleblower complaint led to an investigation into alleged conflicts of
interest involving ICICI Bank’s then-CEO, Chanda Kochhar. This case
illustrated the role of whistleblower mechanisms in unveiling high-level
corporate governance issues.
- The complaint prompted an internal review and a comprehensive
investigation by external agencies, ultimately leading to significant
organizational reforms.
3. **Infosys Whistleblower Case (2019)**:
- Anonymous whistleblowers at Infosys alleged financial irregularities and
unethical practices by senior executives. Following the complaint, Infosys
launched an internal investigation, and SEBI was informed.
- This case highlighted how whistleblower complaints in publicly traded
companies can prompt regulatory scrutiny and organizational changes,
especially when ethics and financial accuracy are concerned.
### Challenges in Implementing Effective Whistleblower Protections
1. **Inadequate Protection in Private Sector**: The Whistle Blowers
Protection Act, 2014, largely applies to public sector employees, leaving
private sector whistleblowers dependent on corporate policies, which vary in
effectiveness.
2. **Fear of Retaliation**: Despite legislative protections, whistleblowers in
India often face subtle or overt forms of retaliation, including demotion,
harassment, or even dismissal.
3. **Pending Amendments to the Whistle Blowers Protection Act**: The
2015 amendments intended to restrict certain disclosures have yet to be
passed, leaving parts of the Act’s enforcement unclear.
4. **Lack of Awareness**: Employees may not be fully aware of the
protections available to them, deterring them from coming forward.