Whistle blowing in its most general form involves calling (public) attention to wrong doing, typically in order to avert harm. Whistle blowing is an attempt by a member or former member of an organization to disclose wrong doing in or by the organization. In whistle blowing there is a conflict between the loyalty and livelihood. Loyalty to ones family is an instinct and a duty; we should not bite the hand that feds our family. We have also duty of loyalty to public trust, the law and our communities.

Ethical dilemma

A thorny ethical question in this case is to what extent the employee bears some of the guilt by not exposing the dangerous or illegal activities of an employer. The whistleblower may suffer serious personal consequences.

Criteria for justifiable whistle blowing

According to Richard T De George there are three conditions that must hold for whistle-blowing to be morally permissible, and two additional conditions that must hold for it to be morally obligatory. The three conditions that must hold for it to be morally permissible are:

The firm through its product or policy will do serious and considerable harm to the public, whether in the person of the user of its product, an innocent bystander, or the general public.

Once an employee identifies a serious threat to the user of a product or to the general public, he or she should report it to his or her immediate superior and make his or her moral concern known. Unless he or she does so, the act of Whistle blowing is not justifiable.

If one's immediate superior does nothing effective about the concern or complaint, the employee should exhaust the internal procedures and possibilities within the firm. This usually will involve taking the matter up the managerial ladder, and if necessary and possible to the board of directors.

Whistleblower must have accessible documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that one’s view of the situation is correct, and the company’s product or practice poses a serious & likely danger to the public or the user of the product.

The employee must have a good reason to believe that by going public the necessary changes will be brought about. The chance of being successful must be worth the risk one takes & danger to which one is exposed.

Whistleblower Protection Act 2011

There have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistleblowers. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the whistle in a corruption case in the National Highways Authority of India’s Golden Quadrilateral project. Two years later, an Indian Oil Corporation officer, Shanmughan Manjunath, was murdered for sealing a petrol pump that was selling adulterated fuel. A movie/Film has been made based on the said incident titled ‘Manjunath’(2014).
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 is an Act of the Parliament of India which provides a mechanism to investigate alleged corruption and misuse of power by public servants and also protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing in government bodies, projects and offices. The wrongdoing might take the form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement.
The Act was approved by the Cabinet of India as part of a drive to eliminate corruption in the country's bureaucracy and passed by the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011. The Bill became an Act when it was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 21 February 2014 and received the President's assent on 9 May 2014.
Corruption is a social evil which prevents proper and balanced social growth and economic development. One of the impediments felt in eliminating corruption in the Government and the public sector undertakings is lack of adequate protection to the complainants reporting the corruption or willful misuse of power or willful misuse of discretion which causes demonstrable loss to the Government or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant.
It was decided to enact a separate legislation to provide adequate protection to the persons reporting corruption or willful misuse of power or discretion which causes loss to the Government or who disclose the commission of a criminal offence by a public servant.

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011

Recently, President Pranab Mukherjee gave assent to the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, 2011, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha. Here are some of its salient features.

1. Object and Purpose of the Act : It is an Act to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.

2. “Disclosure” means a complaint relating to:

(i) Attempt to commit or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(ii) Wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion by virtue of which demonstrable loss is caused to the Government or demonstrable wrongful gain accrues to the public servant or to any third party.

(iii) Attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant.

3. The Identity of the Complainant must be included in the Complaint or the Disclosure.

4. The Competent Authority shall conceal the identity of the complainant unless the complainant himself has revealed his identity to any other office or authority while making public interest disclosure or in his complaint or otherwise.

5. However, the Competent Authority may, with the prior written consent of the complainant, reveal the identity of the complainant to such office or organization where it becomes necessary to do so. If the complainant does not agree to his name being revealed, in that case, the complainant shall provide all documentary evidence in support of is complaint to the Competent Authority.

6. After receipt of the report or comments relating to the complaint, if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that such comments or report reveals either wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion or substantiates allegations of corruption, it shall recommend to the public authority to take appropriate corrective measures such as initiating proceedings against the concerned public servant or other administrative and corrective steps. However, in case the public authority does not agree with the recommendation of the Competent Authority, it shall record the reasons for such disagreement.

7. The Competent Authority cannot entertain any disclosure relating to any inquiry ordered under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 and Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

8. The Time Limit for making any complaint or disclosure to the Competent Authority is seven years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place.

9. While dealing with any such inquiry, the Competent Authority shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of matters like receiving evidence, issuing commissions, discovery and production of any document etc. Also, every proceeding before the Competent Authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973and Indian Penal Code.

10. No obligation to maintain secrecy or other restrictions upon the disclosure of information shall be claimed be claimed by any Public Servant in the proceedings before the Competent Authority. However, all steps must be taken so as not to reveal or compromise the identity of the complainant.

11. But no person is required to furnish any information in the inquiry under this act if such information is likely to prejudicially affect the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, foreign relations, public order, decency or morality, proceedings of the Cabinet of the Union or the state.

12.It shall be the responsibility of the Central Government to ensure that no person who has made a disclosure is victimised on the ground that such person had made a disclosure under this act.

13.If any person is victimised or likely to be victimized on the above-mentioned ground, he may contact the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority may pass appropriate directions in this respect. The Competent Authority can even restore status quo ante with respect to the Public Servant who has made a disclosure. Also, the Competent Authority can pass directions to protect such complainant.

14. However, the Competent Authority can reveal the identity of the complainant in circumstances where it becomes inevitable or extremely necessary for the purposes of the enquiry.

15.Any person who negligently or mala fidely reveals the identity of the complainant shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees.

16. Similarly any disclosure made mala fidely and knowingly that it was false or misleading shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years and fine not exceeding thirty thousand rupees.

17. If an offence under this act has been committed by any Head of the Department unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence in this respect.

18. This Act extends to all the Companies as well. When any offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time of the offence was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence in this respect.

19. The High Court shall be the appellate authority in this respect.

20. The Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of any matter which the Competent Authority is empowered to pursue.

21. No court can take cognizance of any offence under this act save on a complaint made by the Competent Authority. No court inferior to that of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or a Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try any offence under this act.

22.The Central Government and the State Government shall have the power to make the rules under this act, as the case may be.