Let146;s own that whistle

Dubey and Kelly stand out as classic examples of whistle-blowing where the do-gooders had to pay for their efforts with their lives. Kelly ruffled the feathers of the powers that be, and his name was soon enough leaked to the media. Dubey, in fact, had specifically requested anonymity. These two cases reflect the growing intolerance on the part of those in government to increasing demands for transparency in the way major decisions are made at the top echelons.

In both cases, it was someone in the ruling government that leaked the name of the whistle-blower. In both instances, the whistle-blower had to suffer immense pressure and mental torture before his death. Both cases elicited widespread condemnation from all quarters leading to high-profile inquiries 8212; a commission of inquiry in Britain and a Central Bureau of Investigation probe in India.

The dictionary defines a whistle-blower as 8216;8216;one who reveals something covert or who informs against another8217;8217;. 8216;8216;Whistle-blowing8217;8217; ordinarily refers to the process by which an employee holding a government job or working in the public or private sector may draw the attention of his superiors to any wrongdoing or financial malpractice in his department after failing to correct the matter from within. It is expected that the person or department the whistle-blower approaches would offer protection because of the overriding public interest. The infringement of his privacy would amount to a serious breach of trust and confidentiality that could cost the whistle-blower his job 8212; and in extreme cases, even his life.

India, however, does not have a whistle-blowers act. The Constitution Review Commission had recommended such a legislation in 2002. Moreover, a draft bill on public disclosures recommended by the Law Commission lies in cold storage. Satyendra Dubey8217;s death merits attention and serves as a reminder to the government to forthwith evolve a system to protect anybody who complains against corruption. It is significant that while Kelly8217;s family can claim compensation if the Hutton inquiry into his death indicts the Labour government for failing to protect him, the family of the murdered NHAI employee may not have any such legal recourse.

The need for a whistle-blowers act cannot be overemphasised. In both unlettered societies with meagre resources and the developed world, there is an urgent need for access to information by the public along with an act that would provide protection to all those who share their suspicions about wrongdoings around them. It is time that the authorities took cognizance of the fact that money associated with development works that usually comes from the taxpayer8217;s pocket lands up in corrupt hands. In the process development takes the back seat.

India cannot afford to fritter away its funds or its resources. It also cannot afford to lose its honest officers who stand up against all odds and risk their lives. It is time the government thinks about cleaning up the system by providing protection to all those ordinary people who announce their stake in the country8217;s progress by mustering the courage to share their misgivings with their bosses. It may be just a start, but there is no excuse for delaying the promulgation of a whistle-blowers act.