WhistleBlower
A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people. Usually this person would be from that same organization. The revealed misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).
Origins of term
The term whistleblower derives from the practice of English police officers, who would blow their whistles when they noticed the commission of a crime. The whistle would alert other law enforcement officers and the general public of danger
Definition
Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it. There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality.
External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistle blowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward Whistleblowers are commonly seen as selfless martyrs (witness) for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as a 'tattle tale' or "snitches" (slang), solely pursuing personal glory and fame.
It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also because of fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the idea of seeking fame and glory may be less commonly believed
Whistle Blowers in India
Four years ago, India was rocked by the murder of Satyendra Dubey, a government engineer who exposed corruption in the national highway building program. Two years later, Shanmughan Manjunath, a manager at a state-owned oil company, laid bare a scheme to sell impure gasoline. His body was found riddled with bullets in the back seat of his car. Is this what honest person should get in India After all, Satyendra Dubey may not have died in vain. His death was neither the first, nor will be the last that vested interests will perpetrate, but Dubey’s death uniquely galvanized nation-wide protest. That he was an alumnus of IIT mattered. IIT-ians across the world demanded action. Now at last, India has taken the first tentative step towards a full-fledged law to protect whistleblowers.
There is no occasion to celebrate any political sagacity or remorse that might have caused this development. It did not. The government --one with those around the world-- had to be dragged every inch of the way by angry public opinion. The Supreme Court did considerable prodding. The Hon’ble Court was acting on two public interest litigations seeking a permanent mechanism to protect whistleblowers. Finally on April 21, the Ministry of Personnel issued a notification granting immunity to all employees of the government except those in armed and intelligence services. For the moment, the protector of whistleblowers will be the statutory office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. He is vested with the responsibility of protecting the identity of informants, follow-up on information received, investigate if thought fit, and initiate criminal proceedings if required. Once the on-going general elections are over, the new government is expected to apply its mind in framing a bill to supersede the current notification. A robust law is however, some years away. India is about to join an elite club of just four democracies [USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand] which have whistleblower protection. These democracies have not had these laws in place for too long. The US had its law in place only in 1989 and the other countries have followed after that.
K Ashok Vardhan Shetty has written a fine review [in the Hindu] of the role whistleblowers have played in improving transparency in governments. He suggests that Daniel Ellsberg of the USA would easily be the patron saint of modern day whistleblowers. In 1971, Ellsberg released the so-called Pentagon Papers that blew the cover of successive US governments that went about creating the mess called the Vietnam War. Ellsberg was a war veteran and later as an analyst at Rand Corporation had access to sensitive, classified documents. Stung by his conscience Ellsberg leaked these to the public.
There is no occasion to celebrate any political sagacity or remorse that might have caused this development. It did not. The government --one with those around the world-- had to be dragged every inch of the way by angry public opinion. The Supreme Court did considerable prodding. The Hon’ble Court was acting on two public interest litigations seeking a permanent mechanism to protect whistleblowers. Finally on April 21, the Ministry of Personnel issued a notification granting immunity to all employees of the government except those in armed and intelligence services. For the moment, the protector of whistleblowers will be the statutory office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. He is vested with the responsibility of protecting the identity of informants, follow-up on information received, investigate if thought fit, and initiate criminal proceedings if required. Once the on-going general elections are over, the new government is expected to apply its mind in framing a bill to supersede the current notification. A robust law is however, some years away. India is about to join an elite club of just four democracies [USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand] which have whistleblower protection. These democracies have not had these laws in place for too long. The US had its law in place only in 1989 and the other countries have followed after that.
K Ashok Vardhan Shetty has written a fine review [in the Hindu] of the role whistleblowers have played in improving transparency in governments. He suggests that Daniel Ellsberg of the USA would easily be the patron saint of modern day whistleblowers. In 1971, Ellsberg released the so-called Pentagon Papers that blew the cover of successive US governments that went about creating the mess called the Vietnam War. Ellsberg was a war veteran and later as an analyst at Rand Corporation had access to sensitive, classified documents. Stung by his conscience Ellsberg leaked these to the public.
Legal protection
Legal protection for whistle blowing varies from country to country. In the United Kingdom, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides a framework of legal protection for individuals who disclose information so as to expose malpractice and matters of similar concern. In the vernacular, it protects whistleblowers from victimization and dismissal.
The scene in the US
In the US, the $591 million Enron fraud and the $3.8 billion WorldCom case spurred the administration to pass the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002, which provided legal protection to whistleblowers in public companies. Under the Act, retaliation against a corporate whistleblower can invite a jail term of up to 10 years, and a fired employee can be reinstated and receive arrears of salary along with interest and damages.
Whistle-blower policy in India
While the government still has to bring out a comprehensive whistle-blower policy, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the market regulator, included guidelines for companies in an amendment to Clause 49 of the listing agreement in August 2003. Under the guidelines:
• An employee wanting to report a fraud or malpractice in his organization has direct access to his company’s audit committee and can approach it without seeking the consent of his superiors
• The company will send a circular or other correspondence to all its employees informing them that they enjoy this right; it will also protect them from harassment such as termination of services or otherwise discriminate against them
• The company will confirm that it has adhered to the above practice in its annual report, in the Board report on Corporate Governance
Why it lacks teeth
These guidelines were implemented on the recommendations of the SEBI Committee on Corporate Governance chaired by N.R. Narayana Murthy. The guidelines have since been made non-mandatory following reservations on the part of several companies, which cited that the policy could be used to report a number of frivolous cases. There was also the argument that the insertion did not deal adequately with what constituted evidence and what didn’t. So today, you have a Clause 49 that simply calls on companies to merely “establish a mechanism” to enable employees to report misconduct. However, there are a number of companies have indeed evolved a whistle blower policy. In some cases, the reporter of misconduct even includes other stakeholders, such as vendors and customers.
No comments:
Post a Comment