Information on the implementation of the Indian Government’s Whistleblower Policy
19 Jul, 2013Readers may remember that in 2004 the Central Government, stung by allegations of hardly lifting a finger to protect its whistleblowing employees - the Late Mr. Manjunath and the Late Mr. Satyendra Dubey who got murdered, issued a Government resolution creating a system for employees to blow the whistle on cases of wrong doing they come to know of in their department/organisation. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the competent authority for receiving and inquiring into such complaints of wrongdoing in matters of corruption and misuse of office. It is also responsible for protecting the complainant from victimisation by his seniors or colleagues whom he/she may have complained against. The complete text of the Whistleblower Resolution is available on the CVC website and is also given at the end of the article.
In March this year, I filed a request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking statistical information about the number of whistleblower complaints received and disposed of by the CVC.
The CVC’s Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected my request on the ground that compiling the information that I had asked would disproportionately divert its resources.
Later I filed a first appeal with the CVC. The Appellate Authority has also now rejected my request for the same reasons as the PIO without addressing any of the grounds that I had mentioned in support of disclosure of information.
Why should the CVC disclose such information?
I had submitted to the CVC’s Appellate Authority the following grounds in favour of disclosure of the information I had sought:
1) that the information is only statistical in nature and does not involve disclosing names of whistleblowers in any case;
2) that Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the Right to Information (RTI Act) which the PIO invoked cannot be used to deny access to information because under the RTI Act an information request may be denied only if the exemptions listed under Sections 8 and 9 are attracted. No other reason for rejection is valid.
3) while rejecting my RTI application the PIO had cited a decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) from 2011 where a single member had ruled that a request may be rejected under Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. . This decision was issued without hearing either the appellant or the CVC (6th attachment).
I argued before the CVC’s Appellate Authority that the CIC’s decision being quoted is bad in law because it overrules a two-member bench’s decision on the same issue issued in 2006 without even examining it. The CIC had ruled that under 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. a request cannot be denied, but the PIO must provide information in some other form that is possible.
4) I also produced evidence that the CVC had furnished similar statistical information about the implementation of the Whistleblower policy to Parliament for the years 2010-2011. I was asking for information about one year only. I also argued that as per the proviso under Section 8(1) information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to an RTI applicant. So I was entitled to the information. The appellate authority did not even respond to this argument in its order.
What are the Implications of the CVC’s denial of access to information?:
It is clear that the CVC does not have the information I asked for in one place. It is available in disaggregate form, in individual case files. It must be remembered the CVC is the competent authority to receive whistleblower complaints under the Whistleblower Protection Bill which the Lok Sabha passed in 2011. It is pending before the Rajya Sabha and the debate which began on the Bill had to be postponed due to the untimely demise of a Union Minister. If this Bill becomes law, the CVC will have the duty to submit annual reports to Parliament with statistical information about how it has dealt with the complaints of wrongdoing from and victimisation of whistleblowers. The Government may try to get the Bill passed during the Monsoon session which begins from 5th August.
From its RTI replies, the CVC appears to be completely unprepared to handle the responsibilities required of it under the Whistleblower Bill. Given its acknowledged lack of human power and resources to compile even basic statistical information about a few whistleblowing complaints, how well it may perform as competent authority under the Whistleblower Protection law is anybody’s guess.
We need to seriously whether in addition to the CVC other agencies such as the National Human Rights Commission, The Comptroller and Auditor General and such other autonomous bodies should also be made competent authorities for receiving and inquiring into whistleblower complaints. The CVC may not be able to handle the flood of complaints that may come from civil servants once a statutory framework for whistleblower complaints is set up.
Venkatesh Nayak
No.004/VGL/26
Government of India
Central Vigilance Commission
*****
Satarkta Bhawan, Block ‘A’,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi- 110 023
Dated the 17th May, 2004
Office Order No. 33/5/2004
Subject:- Govt. of India Resolution on Public Interest Disclosures & Protection of Informer.
The Government of India has authorised the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the ‘Designated Agency’ to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action.
2. A copy of the Public Notice issued by the Central Vigilance Commission with respect to the above mentioned Resolution is enclosed. All CVOs are further required to take the following actions with respect to the complaints forwarded by the Commission under this Resolution:
(i) All the relevant papers/documents with respect to the matter raised in the complaint should be obtained by the CVO and investigation into the complaint should be commenced immediately. The investigation report should be submitted to the Commission within two weeks.
(ii) The CVO is to ensure that no punitive action is taken by any concerned Administrative authority against any person on perceived reasons/ suspicion of being “whistle blower.”
(iii) Subsequent to the receipt of Commission’s directions to undertake any disciplinary action based on such complaints, the CVO has to follow up and confirm compliance of further action by the DA and keep the Commission informed of delay, if any.
(iv) Contents of this order may be brought to the notice of Secy./CEO/ CMD.
All CVOs may note the above directions for compliance.
Sd/-
(Sujit Banerjee)
Secretary
To
All Chief Vigilance Officers
Central Vigilance Commission
Press Release:
The Government of India has authorized the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the ‘Designated Agency’ to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action.
2. The jurisdiction of the Commission in this regard would be restricted to any employee of the Central Government or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. Personnel employed by the State Governments and activities of the State Governments or its Corporations etc. will not come under the purview of the Commission.
3. In this regard, the Commission, which will accept such complaints, has the responsibility of keeping the identity of the complainant secret. Hence, it is informed to the general public that any complaint, which is to be made under this resolution should comply with the following aspects.
i) The complaint should be in a closed / secured envelope.
ii) The envelope should be addressed to Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission and should be superscribed “Complaint under The Public Interest Disclosure”. If the envelope is not superscribed and closed, it will not be possible for the Commission to protect the complainant under the above resolution and the complaint will be dealt with as per the normal complaint policy of the Commission. The complainant should give his/her name and address in the beginning or end of complaint or in an attached letter.
iii) Commission will not entertain anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.
iv) The text of the complaint should be carefully drafted so as not to give any details or clue as to his/her identity. However, the details of the complaint should be specific and verifiable.
v) In order to protect identity of the person, the Commission will not issue any acknowledgement and the whistle-blowers are advised not to enter into any further correspondence with the Commission in their own interest. The Commission assures that, subject to the facts of the case being verifiable, it will take the necessary action, as provided under the Government of India Resolution mentioned above. If any further clarification is required, the Commission will get in touch with the complainant.
4. The Commission can also take action against complainants making motivated/vexatious complaints under this Resolution.
5. A copy of detailed notification is available on the web-site of the Commission http://www.cvc.nic.in.
Public Notices
GOI Resolution on Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer
The Government of India has authorized the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the ‘Designated Agency’ to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action.
2. The jurisdiction of the Commission in this regard would be restricted to any employee of the Central Government or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. Personnel employed by the State Governments and activities of the State Governments or its Corporations etc. will not come under the purview of the Commission.
3. In this regard, the Commission, which will accept such complaints, has the responsibility of keeping the identity of the complainant secret. Hence, it is informed to the general public that any complaint, which is to be made under this resolution should comply with the following aspects.
i) The complaint should be in a closed / secured envelope.
ii) The envelope should be addressed to Secretary, Central Vigilance Commission and should be superscribed “Complaint under The Public Interest Disclosure”. If the envelope is not superscribed and closed, it will not be possible for the Commission to protect the complainant under the above resolution and the complaint will be dealt with as per the normal complaint policy of the Commission. The complainant should give his/her name and address in the beginning or end of complaint or in an attached letter.
iii) Commission will not entertain anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.
iv) The text of the complaint should be carefully drafted so as not to give any details or clue as to his/her identity. However, the details of the complaint should be specific and verifiable.
v) In order to protect identity of the person, the Commission will not issue any acknowledgement and the whistle-blowers are advised not to enter into any further correspondence with the Commission in their own interest. The Commission assures that, subject to the facts of the case being verifiable, it will take the necessary action, as provided under the Government of India Resolution mentioned above. If any further clarification is required, the Commission will get in touch with the complainant.
4. The Commission can also take action against complainants making motivated/ vexatious complaints under this Resolution.
5. A copy of detailed notification is available on the web-site of the Commission
Issued in Public Interest by the Central Vigilance Commission, INA, Satarkta Bhawan, New Delhi.
Sd/-
Secretary
Central Vigilance Commission