A Critical Study on the Role and Protection of Whistle-Blowers against White-Collar Crime in Indian Politics

Megha Saha

Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad, India

meghasaha210@gmail.com

Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

dhananjay.mishra@slsh.edu.in

Mr. Hifajatali Sayyed

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

hifajatali@slsh.edu.in

Abstract

Corruption as a white-collar crime has been a prolonged challenge in the Indian Political system. The role and contribution of Whistleblowers in exposing such elite crimes and criminals have been immense, but their contributions are not that smooth, they have been subjected to oppression, threats, physical harm, reputation or even life threats. This study will discuss the roles and responsibilities of whistleblowers, provide insights into the forms of whistleblowers and the significance of whistleblowers in political corruption, and provide clarity on why it is essential to protect the rights of whistleblowers. It will give an understanding of the protections that are provided to whistleblowers in the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2014 and other legislatures that protect and encourage whistle-blowing in India, will also elaborate on the Right to Information Act as a legal instrument to acquire information about the irregularities, it will also highlight the challenges which are faced by whistleblowers in disclosure of the truth. The study will also provide a list of whistle-blowers who have stood against the corruption and irregularities in Politics without caring about themselves and standing firmly with Justice. The study would also provide suggestions to ensure better protection of whistleblowers to combat corruption in India.

Keywords: Corruption, Whistle Blower, Whistle Blower Protection Act, Politics, Disclosure.

Introduction

“Whistleblower” originated from the German word “whistle”, which indicates activities of exposing or unveiling a wrongful act and putting an end to it. Whistleblowing constitutes actions taken by individuals to reveal any form of abuse of power, immoral acts, and corrupt practices, in an organization both public and private or committed in an individual capacity. The individual who assists and comes forward to aware people of illegal acts is the key feature of “Whistleblower”. According, to Leedy, a fine journalist stated “In every sphere, there are gaps in our understanding and unresolved issues waiting to be resolved. We bridge these knowledge gaps and address the unresolved problems by posing pertinent questions and actively seeking answers to them. The purpose of research is to offer a systematic approach to acquiring those answers by diligently examining the evidence using the framework of the scientific method.”[1]

At the beginning of the 1970s, an eminent activist, Ralph Nader, eradicated titles like “informers” and “snitches” which were negative to hear and replaced them with a sophisticated and respectful title “whistleblower”[2], this was much more liked by the people and ear-pleasing to all. His intention for coining this term was to give a motivated approach to every individual to expose the truth in a respectable manner, devoid of any kind of stigma.

An individual plays a pivotal role in detecting and reporting issues regarding corporate irregularities, both public and private which comprises of breach of trust, conflicts of interest, corruption, fraud, scams, administrative lacuna, questions on credibility, biased conduct, non-compliance to ethical and legal norms, workplace injustice, employee grievances, illegal extortion of money, etc. These crimes are generally of a nature that cannot be easily detected by regulatory authorities, as it is usually committed within the organisation itself, and protections such as indoor management and corporate veil play a vital role in protecting the operation of the companies, making it more critical in examining such irregularities within an organisation or public office. The people who successfully identify the disparity and bring it to the notice of the competent authority for further investigation can be termed Whistleblowers, therefore it becomes the individual’s obligation to inform and disclose the factual evidence upon which the allegations are based. That individual can be someone within the organisation or someone outside the organisation, the main concern would be to render information, and foster transparency and accountability.

To motivate and encourage these kinds of initiatives in reporting and researching, the regulatory agencies have brought about some protective measures and support for these Whistleblowers, which would inculcate a sense of security and safeguard their rights.

In Ancient India also, we see references to the conceptualisation of whistleblower had its prominence, in the words of Kautilya “Any informant (suchaka) who supplies information about embezzlement just under perpetration shall, if he succeeds in proving it get as reward one-sixth of the amount in question: if he happens to be a government servant (bhritaka), he shall get for the same act one-twelfth of the amount.”[3] This concept has a well-defined resemblance to the whistleblower, and there was a reward for the informant (Suchaka) if they could successfully detect financial fraud, the reward stipulated was one-sixth of the questionable amount, and if the informant was a government servant (bhritaka), he would be rewarded with one-twelfth of the disputed money.[4] The reward distribution was made in this way for the government servants, it was obligatory to perform their duty to ensure a corruption-free administration, whereas, the external informant’s job was much more challenging. On the other side of the coin, if an informant shifts from his statements given against the accused, would be thoroughly penalised, which may be even a death sentence. Though this was a rigid and harsh form of punishment, it would create deterrence in the mind of the informant before giving any kind of statement, to defame or conspire against any innocent officials. He also initiated a self-checking mechanism, which would be headed by a Chief Officer (Adhikarna) responsible for identifying corruption cases.

Literature Review:

Shah Samrudhee, “Whistle Blowing Mechanism in India: An Analytical Study” published in Pimpri L. Rev. J. 1 (2023).

In this research work[5] the author, discusses the current legal frameworks in India that ensure the protection of the whistle-blowers, and opens with a quotation by Thomas M. Devine “Whistle-blower protection is a policy that all government leaders support in public but few in power tolerate in private” this statement upheld the reality of the government is ignorant about this particular legislature and do not encourage such activities due to the reason of corruption in the system. The author also criticizes the new amendment bill of 2015, as it was not whistle-blower-friendly.

Research Gap: This study provides detailed information about the legal framework but does not provide specified arena, it is more generic in nature.

JagabandhuSahoo, BiswajitBiswal&Pratima Sarangi, “Voices of Truth: The Role of Whistleblowing in Strengthening Governance and Accountability in India,” published in 7 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Hum. 39 (2025)

In this research work,[6]the changes that whistleblowers take and fight with deep-rooted mindsets of silence and unaccountability. Assess the existing legal framework, especially the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2014, to discuss how there are implementation gaps despite the promises. Among the key issues are anonymity to whistleblowers, procedural delays, inadequate safeguards against retaliation, and limited awareness among employees about their rights.

Research Gap: The study develops a very strong conceptual argument regarding the role of whistleblowing in good governance. It does not, however, include any empirical insights such as interviews or data on British whistleblower outcomes, nor does it explore how such mechanisms work across different sectors or regions.

ShefaliChitkara, “Whistleblowing of Corporate Frauds in India,” published in faculty database Chitkara Univ. (2020).

The study[7] is on ethical surfacing in organizations-cum-corporates in India, with reference to whistleblowing. This paper qualitatively analyzes cases of some infamous cases of corporate fraud to highlight the areas where whistleblowers mainly emerge-disclosure of unethical practices. This paper speaks volumes as regards the need for internal policies and institutional cultures that promote and protect people from further victimization after they blow the whistle on corporate misconduct.

Research Gap: It adds something concrete to the range of cases of corporate fraud; however, leaves some empirical gaps regarding the existing mechanisms of protection for whistleblowers apart from ignoring the psychological and professional consequences inflicted on them due to disclosures.

Ruchi Agarwal &Ruchi Tiwari, State of Whistleblowing Research: A Thematic Analysis, 8 FIIB Bus. Rev. 262 (2019)

This article[8] presents a holistic thematic analysis of the literature on whistle-blowing, addressing various key themes such as the intent to report, organizational responses, and legal frameworks. It identifies a major focus in the majority of literature on Western contexts and suggests more research directed at India’s socio-cultural and legal environment.

Research Gap: The study addresses several pressing issues concerning the Indian context where very scant empirical work has been done, especially setting into the real-life issues facing whistle-blowers and the mediations through which legal protection works.

Research Question:

1. What is the significant role of whistle-blower in Politics?
2. What are the legal frameworks are present in India for the protection of Whistleblowers in India?
3. What protection does the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2014 provide?

Research Objective:

• To understand the legal frameworks available for the protection of Whistle Blowers in India and are they sufficient.
• To ascertain the need for whistle blower protection in curbing the Political corruption.

Research Methodology:

The study is based on doctrinal research, which includes both primary and secondary data, the primary data referred to are the bare acts of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, SEBI Act, Companies Act, reports, etc. The secondary sources include research papers, articles, and newspaper articles. This is a form of qualitative research where data is analysed to obtain the required conclusion.   

Forms of Whistleblowers:

The definition of “whistleblower” can be stated as “any individual making public interest disclosure”[9]Further “the public interest disclosure” can be interpreted as specific disclosure pertaining to a criminal act, legal violation, causing threat to public health and safety, corrupt practices or causing any harmful impact on the environment. Whistle-blowers can be broadly classified into various types depending on their relation with the institution and understanding the typology is crucial to determine the protection they need[10].

1. Internal Whistle-blower

These are the individuals who are employees within the institution itself and they discover some dysfunctionality in the organisation and report these irregularities to the competent authority. These are mostly reports of unethical practices in the company’s functioning, misconduct, managerial concerns, etc. These disputes are majorly resolved within the organisation itself by typical methods of disciplinary committees, redressal committees, etc.

• External Whistle-blower

These are individuals who lose their hope in internal dispute resolution and choose to report the wrongful act to other individuals or authorities outside the institution, at times including regulatory agencies, enforcement bodies, journalists, NGOs, legal bodies, media, and public support agencies. External whistleblowing runs on the notion of public responsibility and social justice.

• Alumni Whistle-blower

These are individuals who were former employees or members of the organisation and have discontinued their service, yet they come forward to reveal the ill practices that they encountered during his/her employment, they are not further associated with the organisation but feel obligated to state the truth about the organisation to prevent from any sort of mishaps.

• Open Whistle-blower

These are the individuals who do disclose their identity and openly object without any pressure or fear, these individuals are more prone to threats and backlash from the people they expose, but their courage increases the credibility of the matter and attracts more attention.

• Personal Whistle-blower

These are individuals who have been solely targeted within the organisation and causing harm to the individual’s reputation, position in the organisation, security and deprivation of rights. These individuals prima facie tend to defend or glorify personal injustice.

• Government Whistle-blower

These are the individuals who engage themselves to enshrine the corrupt and illegal practices in the arena of public services and government entities. These individuals raise questions about the government’s accountability and transparency.

• Corporate Whistle-blower

These are individuals who unveil the corporate irregularities in the companies and business organisations such as fraud, breach of trust, environmental policies, etc.

Legal Frameworks for the Protection of Whistle-blowers in India

Companies Act, 2013

Publicly listed companies must have a vigil mechanism to report unethical or illegal activities by employees or senior executives as per Section 177(9) of the Companies Act, 2013[11], therefore, companies are required to have a whistleblower policy to provide protection against the victimization of those who report wrongdoing. But the mere existence of the policy is not enough. The success of any whistleblower policy depends on the spirit of the policy in the first place-how genuine the organization is in promoting transparency and how commensurate the organization is in dealing with the issues raised. Any such policy should not only facilitate complaints but rather create an overall culture where speaking is safe, supported, responsible, and taken seriously. Even passive behaviour towards serious issues should breach this culture of reporting, as silence permits wrongdoing to prevail.

Here are some essential characteristics of a genuinely effective whistleblower policy:

• Clear Reporting Channels: Organizations should have a clear process that allows anyone to raise a concern, whether junior or senior staff. In an ideal situation, this should be facilitated by someone of very high authority, such as the Chairman of the Board, so that he/she can ensure fairness and accountability.
• Open to All: Every member of the organization should feel free to report any wrongdoing. No one should feel that their role or position excludes them from raising their voice.
• What Should Be Reported: It should state in clear terms the specific categories of offences that must be reported, such as alleged discrimination, negligent performance quality, fraud, and alleged misuse of company funds.
• Serious and Fair Investigations: Upon the submission of any complaint about wrongdoings by employees, senior management should treat that issue in a serious light and commence a full investigation. Maliciously bringing false complaints must also have consequences.
• Zero Tolerance for Retaliation: It is very vital that whistleblowers are protected against any acts of retaliation. The policy should clearly state that any form of harassment, punishment, or subtle retaliation will not be tolerated.
• Total Confidentiality: The identity of the whistleblower and the subject matter of the complaint should always remain confidential in order to ensure their safety and tranquillity.
• Accountability against Misusers: While the actual whistleblower should be protected, the policy should also contain provisions against misuse. If somebody files a false complaint, knowing it to be false, they are liable for punishment.

There is a rather exhaustive process prescribed under the Companies Act, 2013 for the inquiry, inspection, and investigation, from Sections 206 to 229[12]in one single chapter. This scheme allows the detection of corporate misconduct with more finesse and gives inspectors and auditors outside the enterprise a greater opportunity to play a role in finding the truth. In many ways, these external agents can be considered whistleblowers.

An example is given in Section 208[13], which gives an inspector (other than the Registrar) the power to examine company records and to recommend that a deeper investigation be launched if there are plausible grounds for suspicion. Following that, Section 210[14] gives the Central Government the power to order a formal investigation-whether upon such recommendations because of public concern or even upon a special resolution passed by the company itself, calling for an investigation.

For serious cases, Section 211[15] gave birth to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), which is a focal agency with powers to look into cases of enormous fraud and even apprehend offenders responsible for major financial misconduct.

In the past, auditors were not legally obligated to detect fraud, and their role was mainly to report on irregularities they came across. However, this has changed. Auditors are now mandated to report on suspected fraud against the Central Government or relevant authority. In essence, they are also expected to step into the shoes of a whistleblower if the need arises, not mere spectators. 

SECURITY EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

In 2003, SEBI took a major step toward enhancing transparency and accountability in corporate India when, by an August 26, 2003 circular, it amended the Principles of Corporate Governance under the standard Listing Agreement. One of the key amendments was the introduction of Clause 49[16], which encouraged the establishment of a whistleblower policy. The objective was to provide employees with a safe and confidential avenue for reporting instances of unethical behaviour, violations of company policy, or misconduct without fear of retaliation.

At that time, it was not mandatory for an organization to formulate such a policy. However, several progressive organizations adopted it on their own as they viewed it as making their internal ethics stronger, enforcing accountability, and encouraging good governance by making space for employees to speak up. Although not mandatory, companies would still have to declare whether they had such a mechanism and state the number of complaints received thereunder, how many had been resolved, and how many were still pending. This transparency offered stakeholders an opportunity to assess the level of ethical conduct promoted by the company and the seriousness with which it addresses internal issues.

Later, in a significant move toward strengthening corporate governance, SEBI repealed the old Listing Agreement and instituted the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015[17]. Under Regulation 22, the existence of a whistleblower mechanism became mandatory for all listed companies. This regulation establishes a formal and protected channel through which the employees and directors of a company, irrespective of standing in the organization, can report any acts of unethical practices, fraud, or violations of law.

Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2014

Ever since 1993, historical imprints of the ‘whistleblowers’ laws in India’ date to N. Vittal, the then chief vigilance commissioner for the first time in a proposal for the introduction of a dedicated law of whistleblower protection. The subject gained momentum in December 2001, which was the time when the Law Commission of India suggested that the enactment of such legislation must therefore become the priority if corruption was to be dealt with adequately; in its report titled ‘Public Interest Disclosure Bill’[18], the Law Commission submitted the report to ArunJaitley, who was the minister for Law, Justice, and Public Affairs at the time, along with a draft bill.

In January 2003, a draft of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill, 2002[19] was circulated. However, the emotional triggering point for this case transformed the nation on account of the brutal assassination of SatyendraDubey, a project director at the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), as this development occurred later in the same year. Dubey had the rare courage to expose corruption in highway projects, for which he paid the supreme price. His murder evoked a wide-outcry amongst the general public and the media about the need for immediate legislation to protect whistleblowers. In early 2004, given mounting popular pressures, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to set up an interim mechanism to hear cases of whistleblowing until a law could be enacted[20].

 In May 2004, the Government of India issued a resolution to empower the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to receive complaints regarding corruption in central government institutions[21]. There were other developments after this period.

The Right to Information Act was notified in October 2005[22], giving citizens the right to demand information and transparency. The draft Public Services Bill of 2006 called for the government to establish mechanisms for the protection of whistleblowers within six months of the enactment of the bill. In 2007, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission’s report[23] again strongly recommended the enactment of specific legislation to protect whistleblowers. Meanwhile, in 2005, India was a signatory (not yet a ratified member) to the UN Convention Against Corruption[24], which encourages member states to promote the reporting of corruption and shield whistleblowers, witnesses, and experts from retaliation.

Eventually, things moved in the legislative direction. The bill was introduced at the Lok Sabha in the morning session on August 26, 2010, by PrithvirajChavan, then Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, in the name of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010[25], popularly referred to as the Whistleblower Bill. Lok Sabha passed the Bill on December 27, 2011, with various amendments.

Legislating was very belatedly achieved on the 21st of February 2014 after the Parliament passed the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014[26]. After some further amendments to the original Act, these were circulated in Rajya Sabha on August 5, 2013. Later, the Whistleblowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015[27] to refine the original Act, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 11, 2015, and passed in a couple of days on May 13, 2015.

Protections under the Whistle blower’s Protection Act, 2014

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act[28] was constituted to inculcate legal protection to whistle-blowers and build a cultural significance in obtaining transparency and accountability within the public sector.

Section 2(f) provides for the definition of who can be addressed as a “Whistleblower”, it states any individual, including a public servant, “who makes a protection disclosure about corruption, wilful misuse of power, or criminal offences by public functionaries”. This also denotes individuals inside and outside the organisation.

Section 4 of the act emphasises the disclosure initiated in ‘good faith’ with regard to the corruption, abuse of authority, or misuse of public funds, and further specifies that such disclosures can be of Government departments, Public Sector Undertakings, and Public Officials including MPs, MLAs, etc. The disclosures made should be made out of utmost good faith. 

Section 3 of the act, lays down the list of competent bodies to whom the protection disclosure can be made, which includes the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), State Vigilance Commission(SVC), Comptroller and Auditor General( CAG), and heads of the specific departments or public entities. The competent authority is obligated to do a preliminary inquiry and if required can also order for full-fledged investigation.

Section 11, of the act gives protection against Victimization of the whistle-blowers, such as transfer, demotion, suspension from service, dismissal, threat, harassment, or even physical harm. It protects from any disciplinary or administrative actions against the whistle-blowers for making disclosure.

Section 12 of the act deals with the compensatory criteria, which states if a whistle-blower is subjected to loss or physical harm, due to disclosure, they would be eligible to claim compensation for the same from the competent public authority.

Section 4(4) r/w Section 16, states that the identity of the whistle-blower should be confidential during all the stages of investigation, inquiry or report, only under special circumstances, it could be revealed, but that should be with the consent of the whistle-blower.       

Significance of Whistle Blowers in Political Corruption

Indian politics thrives on power and authority, most political authorities are tempted to strengthen their position to remain in power and secure their monopoly in governance, and having such endless power and connections, they believe they can be shadowed by the offences they commit. The fear determinant is merelypertaining to their power and lack of accountability in the government. This becomes challenging to determine the irregularities and corruption in the form of bribery, money laundering, embezzlement, etc. In such instances, the role of whistle-blowers becomes supreme as they are the individuals to report such practices by such government officials, Ministers, or MLAs, reporting such crimes takes a lot of courage as the people alleged to be committee such act is not layman, they have a greater extent of authority, and proving guilt against such person is technically difficult and can even lead to life-threatening situations.

According to the 2024 EY Global Integrity report (India)[29], highlighted the reasons for non-reporting of the cases in India are lack of trust in the resolution, loyalty towards the political party and organisation, pressure upon them to remain silent, refraining from their social responsibility in addressing the irregularities, etc. The 2023 report by Transparency International[30], exclaims that only 35% of the Whistle-blowers, who came forward and reported had their confidence in the existing law for their protection.

The valuable contributions in exposing financial crimes cannot be treated ignorantly, as to make people alert about their social responsibilities, they should be provided with sufficient rights and protection, which may make them feel secure and not subjective to oppression from the government powers, the tool of Right to Information though has its course to acquire information of public servants, yet there isa lacuna in the proper implementation of this rights, in most of the cases it is not provided and the process of acquiring such data is complex and can even be manipulated at times.

To combat corruption or any form of financial crime in India, it becomes essential to protect the rights of the whistle-blower as if they do not feel secure, they would never come forward to report these crimes. In most instances, a counter FIR is lodged against the whistle-blowers, on the grounds of defamation and harm to reputation, especially in political cases, this concern should also be addressed and proper remedy against this should also be provided.

Eminent Whistleblowers in India

Some significant individuals were courageous and brave to pierce through the system and enshrine the corrupt practices in the organisation, even after being under threat and political oppression, their ethical motivation was so strong that brought various changes in our political system and has immensely contributed to drafting policies against the prevention of these crimes.

Satyendra Dubey[31]: Satyendra Dubey was a young, dedicated officer of the Indian Engineering Services, honest and conscientious to a point rarely met. He was serving as project director in the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and was busy overseeing the construction of an important section of National Highway 2, which was part of the ambitious Golden Quadrilateral Project inaugurated by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. During this project, Satyendra Dubey found serious cases of financial irregularities and took a public stand against them, resulting in the suspension of three engineers of a private contractor.

Despite all these risks, Dubey came forward with the intention of clean governance. Sadly, on 27 November 2003, on his way back from a marriage ceremony in Varanasi, Dubey was murdered and the body was later discovered in Gaya, Jharkhand[32]. His killing sent shock waves across the country and underscored the perilous conditions faced by whistleblowers in India[33]. An organization based in London posthumously conferred him the title of “Whistleblower of the Year” in honour of his bravery and valour. His legacy persists and continues to serve as an inspiration for stronger protection for truth-tellers.

Rinku Singh Rahi[34]:The exceptional story of Rinku Singh Rahi symbolizes and epitomizes courage in the face of deep-rooted corruption and unimaginable adversity. A 2009 appointee to the position of District Social Welfare Officer in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, Rahi was a principled and honest civil servant[35]. When he began to work, he came across astonishing financial irregularities in the government’s welfare schemes, which were designed to aid the most vulnerable, the students from backward sections of society. What he encountered was disturbing, crores of rupees had been siphoned off by a well-connected cabal of officials and middlemen. Acting in the public’s best interest against the backdrop of adversity, Rahi chose to report the crime through the few channels available. Instead of being assisted and protected, he was left with no allies and became the target of all sorts of intimidation. His sacrifice in maintaining such ideals as honesty and justice would come at the price of devastation to his personal life.

In March 2009, Rahi was ambushed and shot multiple times near his office. The callous attack was believed to have been carried out by those who felt threatened by his revelations. The attempt on his life almost succeeded, but he survived with grave physical injuries, among them the loss of an eye and brutal damage to his jaw. Yet Rahi, although severely traumatized[36], would not give in. After he recovered, he turned to the Right to Information Act (RTI) and this would become an instrument to continue his battle against corruption. Over the years, he filed more than 1,000 RTIs, to fight corruption. In this process, he pursued and did get some semblance of justice, despite the efforts to keep him out on the fringes of the bureaucracy, being threats and mostly isolated from the system, yet he trudged on. Rinku Singh Rahi’s journey is not merely that of a whistleblower journey is that of one who chose to speak when silence was an easier option. His resilience has put cracks in an already wobbly system and, in the process, underlines the urgent need for protective mechanisms for whistleblowers in India[37].

Even in today’s era, Rahi embodies rectitude, strength, and optimism. His thoughts and ideologies still existin discussions about ethical governance, transparency, and the power of individual action toward change. His fearlessness is, indeed, an admonition to the present and the future generation and a source of encouragement-reminding us that providing protection for whistleblowers is not merely a constitutional issue but, above all, a moral issue.

AseervathamAchary[38]:Achary was the trusted aide[39] to the then-Telecom Minister A. Raja might have witnessed one of the greatest scandals of the 2G spectrum allocation. The entire national interests matter of breach in which all the telecom companies were given licenses at throwaway prices. It was money that ought to have been lost in minutes of favouring the likes of so-called justice, equity, and public interest. Achary has been a witness to irregularities, secret meetings, decisions beneficial to the few, policies bent to serve business interests and the list goes on. Now it would have been easy for him to look the other way, preserve his position, and remain mute like others, but he did not choose to do so.

In 2011, Achary took the courageous step to bring the truth to the table. He went on to be a prominent whistleblower in the 2G case and put forth substantial evidence to the CVC and CBI. His testimony did not only provide credence to doubts kindled in the minds of investigators; it set forth the whole process of manipulation of rules, preferential treatment to a handful of select companies, and the large-scale misuse of power. This was not just normal testimony; this was defiant testimony, knowing fully well that standing up to the mighty could bring dire consequences. Yet, Achary believed, it was worth saying the truth, even as that case turned into a national outcry shaking governments and persuading other top leaders and business tycoons to resign and be imprisoned[40].

The story of AseervathamAchary is more than just about exposing corruption. It shows the quiet but sturdy force of one citizen choosing integrity over complicity. He reminded the nation that in a world where silence is often thought to be the safe and secure route, sometimes telling the truth is indeed the most powerful decision and brings about an efficient change in the System.

Vijay Pandhare[41]:Vijay Pandhare, was an engineer of high rank, standing on the other side of his conscience; he was occupying the position of Chief Engineer under Maharashtra Water Resources Department. Partly because of this, many things disturbed him as an engineer concerning the sensitive information regarding various project appraisals. Funds of thousands of crores had been routed to irrigation projects in various parts of Maharashtra. Quite a significant portion of them was either incomplete, barely operational, or completely non-existent.

He was a government employee doing his work with passion. After a thorough examination of the departmental files against field realities, over ₹12,000 crores had been spent on irrigation projects[42], while 99 per cent of the 227 projects were not functional. Down a black hole of corruption, negligence, and inflated papers. And behind these numbers are real consequences of barren fields, desperate farmers, and dying hopes from drought-hit areas of Maharashtra. In a letter written directly to the chief minister of Maharashtra, he detailed the scale of corruption and mismanagement in the department. His whistleblowing was not based on suspicions; it was truly based on professionally acquired facts, figures, and information over decades of service. It was a voice that truly believed that public resources are dedicated to work for the public.

The impact was immediate, with the force of a nuclear bomb. Politico-strategic tremors were felt all over the state as these revelations spilt out, ultimately forcing the resignation of Deputy Chief Minister AjitPawar[43], who had been overseeing the irrigation department for quite a length of time. For a fleeting moment, the truth of Pandhare brought an entire system to a halt, forcing it to look in the mirror. But the backlash was equally unforgiving. Like many whistleblowers, he faced isolation, bureaucratic retaliation, and pipe attacks on his integrity; to all these, he held ground for no personal gain, only out of a sense of duty for the people and the land he served.

Vijay Pandhare’s extraordinary stand became a beacon for accountability in public offices[44]. It lifted the curtain on how deep-seated corruption could be within the ambit of developmental projects and how much we need people, truly brave people, nestled within the system who are willing to stand up, speak out, and become the peoples’ champions.

Ashok Khemka:Ashok Khemka was an honest IAS officer. He was in the news as something remarkable happened to him in 2012. Contrary to what the other most brilliant IAS officers do, he took the bright step of cancelling a deal between DLF and RobertVadra during his posting in Haryana. He gave clear reasons for the cancellation, with glaring irregularities in the paperwork and procedures, something that many may have noticed but chose to ignore[45].

Within days of his service, he was transferred out of the station after exposing the deal. This, however, was nothing new for him. He had been transferred more than 50 times in his career as an unspoken punishment for understanding and exposing, to be completely honest in a resistant system. While many may have bowed to the pressure or taken a vow of silence for convenience, Khemka stood firm on the harder path of integrity rather than acceptance[46].

It would be behind Khemka’s story of inspiration that he is such an efficient officer. He does not seek any headlines, nor does he contest against his critics. He lets his work and principles speak for him.

Even today, Ashok Khemka remains that potent symbol of honesty in government service who reminds us that while systems can be rigid and often unjust to the persons who question those, individuals can still stand with integrity and challenge such a status quo. He has initiated a debate on the need for even better protection of whistleblowers and more openness in governance.

Suggestions:

To promote effective whistleblowing and holdthe accountability of the governance following steps can be incorporated also into the present system:

• Necessary amendment should be incorporated into the existing Whistle Blower Act, which could strengthen the protection of whistle-blowers.
• There should be the implementation of proper training mechanisms and awareness regarding the rights of the whistle-blower so that they could be encouraged to report, without fear.
• Reinforcing the support of civil society organisations in whistle-blowing and in the attainment of transparency.
• To encourage the media platforms to uphold the truth of the organisations revealed by the whistle-blowers.
• Rewarding the efforts and bravery of the whistle-blowers for disclosure, would be a more motivating initiative.

Conclusion

The rising concerns of corruption in India, cannot be solely capable for the CVC, ED, SVC, and CBI, to address and becomes nearly impossible at times to be efficiently identified, thus the cooperation of the whistle-blowers is extensively relevant, especially the internal whistle-blower. Whistleblowing is, indeed, more than just a mechanism offered by law; it is a courageous action and social sentiment. In India, where corruption and threats to public welfare affect people’s trust in them deeply, whistleblowers become invisible heroes. They gatherthe courage to expose misconducts otherwise left in the dark, fulfilling a very important function in ensuring justice and accountability in these institutions. In this study, we have examined how whistleblowing can bring transparency and thereby serve the cause of a more just system, even in the face of grave threats to the whistleblower. From situations involving corporate fraud to malfeasance by the government, the anecdotes and frameworks discussed here demonstrate the strength of one voice standing for truth.

---

[1] Paul D. Leedy, Practical Research: Planning and Design, ch. 1, http://stceddepart.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/5/9/4059456/practicalresearch_planninganddesign_by_paul-dleedy_chap1-whatisresearch.pdf

[2]Whistleblowers and Their Protection in India, Legal Services India, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1693/Whistleblowers-and-their-Protection-in-India.html

[3]Whistleblowers and Their Protection in India, Legal Services India, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1693/Whistleblowers-and-their-Protection-in-India.html

[4] Pradeep Kumar Gautam, Saurabh Mishra et al. (eds.), Indigenous Historical Knowledge: Vol. I (IDSA 2015)

[5] Shah Samrudhee, Whistle Blowing Mechanism in India: An Analytical Study, 2 Pimpri L. Rev. J. 1 (2023).

[6]JagabandhuSahoo, BiswajitBiswal&Pratima Sarangi, Voices of Truth: The Role of Whistleblowing in Strengthening Governance and Accountability in India, 7 Int’l J.L. Mgmt. & Hum. 39 (2025), https://doi.org/10.33545/26646021.2025.v7.i1a.425.

[7]ShefaliChitkara, Whistleblowing of Corporate Frauds in India, Chitkara Univ. (2020), https://www.chitkara.edu.in/global-week/faculty-data/cbs/SHEFALI/Whistle-Blowing-Of-Corporate-Frauds-In-India_07-03-2020-1.pdf.​

[8]Ruchi Agarwal &Ruchi Tiwari, State of Whistleblowing Research: A Thematic Analysis, 8 FIIB Bus. Rev. 262 (2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2319714519888314.​

[9]The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, No. 17 of 2014, § 3, Acts of Parliament, 2014 (India).

[10]JagabandhuSahoo, BiswajitBiswal&Pratima Sarangi, Voices of Truth: The Role of Whistleblowing in Strengthening Governance and Accountability in India, 7 Int’l J. L. Mgmt. & Hum. 1, 1 (2025), https://doi.org/10.33545/26646021.2025.v7.i1a.425.

[11] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 177(9), India Code (2013)

[12] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, §§ 206–229, India Code (2013)

[13] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 208, India Code (2013).

[14] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 210, India Code (2013).

[15] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, § 211, India Code (2013)

[16] Securities and Exchange Board of India, Circular No. SEBI/MRD/SE/31/2003/26/08, Amendment to Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement (Aug. 26, 2003), available at https://www.sebi.gov.in.

[17] SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, Gazette of India, pt. III sec. 4, reg. 22 (Nov. 30, 2015), available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/nov-2015/sebi-listing-obligations-and-disclosure-requirements-regulations-2015_30998.html.

[18] Law Comm’n of India, 179th Report on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill (2001), available at https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/179rptp1.pdf.

[19] Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill, 2002 (draft), in Law Comm’n of India, 179th Report on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill (2001), Annexure.

[20]People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 S.C.C. 476 (India).

[21] Government of India, Resolution No. 371/20/99-AVD-III, Empowering the Central Vigilance Commission to Act on Complaints from Whistleblowers (May 21, 2004), available at https://cvc.gov.in.

[22] Right to Information Act, No. 22 of 2005, INDIA CODE (2005), available at https://legislative.gov.in.

[23] Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (Jan. 2007), available at https://darpg.gov.in.

[24] United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Oct. 31, 2003, 2349 U.N.T.S. 41

[25] The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010, Bill No. 97 of 2010, Lok Sabha Secretariat, available at https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-whistleblowers-protection-bill-2010.

[26] Whistle Blowers Protection Act, No. 17 of 2014, INDIA CODE (2014), available at https://legislative.gov.in

[27] The Whistle Blowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015, Bill No. 121 of 2015, Lok Sabha Secretariat, available at https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-whistle-blowers-protection-amendment-bill-2015.

[28]Ibid

[29]Ernst & Young Global Ltd., 2024 EY Global Integrity Report – India Edition, EY (2024), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98144dab-784a-4a98-9cb0-8150d2db9b84.

[30]Transparency Int’l, Global Corruption Barometer – Asia 2023, Transparency Int’l (2023), https://www.transparency.org/en/gcb/asia/asia-2023 (referenced via Lexology: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98144dab-784a-4a98-9cb0-8150d2db9b84).

[31]Parivartan&Ors. v. Union of India &Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 539 of 2003, Supreme Court of India.

[32]Three get life term in Dubey murder case, Deccan Herald, Mar. 27, 2010, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/three-get-life-term-dubey-2481081

[33] Kate Reeves, The Story of India’s “First Whistleblower:” Stalled Progress in the Wake of Satyendra Dubey’s 2003 Murder, Whistleblower Network News (June 3, 2024), https://whistleblowersblog.org/global-whistleblowers/the-story-of-indias-first-whistleblower-stalled-progress-in-the-wake-of-satyendra-dubeys-2003-murder/.

[34]Rinku Singh Rahi v. Pub. Info. Officer, Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2008/00155/1589, Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2008/00155 (Cent. Info. Comm’n Feb. 10, 2009), https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/574c2627e561090f2a0dc72e.

[35]Whistleblower Cop Forcibly Taken to Asylum in UP, India Today (Mar. 27, 2012), https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/whistleblower-cop-uttar-pradesh-taken-to-asylum-97287-2012-03-26

[36]AnantZanane, Lucknow: Whistleblower Bureaucrat Whisked Away from Protest Site at Midnight, Taken to Psychiatric Ward, NDTV (Mar. 27, 2012), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/lucknow-whistleblower-bureaucrat-whisked-away-from-protest-site-at-midnight-taken-to-psychiatric-war-473510.

[37]Support Pours in for WhistleblowerBabu from Civil Society Activists, Times of India (Apr. 29, 2012), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/support-pours-in-for-whistleblower-babu-from-civil-society-activists/articleshow/12917110.cms.

[38]Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Raja &Ors., Special CBI Court, New Delhi, Judgment dated Dec. 21, 2017

[39] “2G: A Raja’s Ex-Aide AseervathamAchary Stands by Statement, Indicts Others Also,” The Economic Times (Dec. 13, 2011), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/telecom/2g-a-rajas-ex-aide-aseervatham-achary-stands-by-statement-indicts-others-also/articleshow/11169948.cms.

[40] “2G: Raja Aide Gives Damaging Testimony,” Business Standard (Dec. 20, 2011), https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/2g-raja-aide-gives-damaging-testimony-111122000068_1.html

[41]Satyendra Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand &Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 539 of 2003 (India).

[42] State Govt Official Alleges Rs 35,000 Cr Irrigation Scam, Times of India (Sept. 9, 2012), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/state-govt-official-alleges-rs-35000cr-irrigation-scam/articleshow/16328394.cms

[43]AjitPawar Resigns as Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra Over Allegations of Irrigation Scam, NDTV (Sept. 25, 2012), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ajit-pawar-resigns-as-deputy-chief-minister-of-maharashtra-over-allegations-of-irrigation-scam-500150.

[44] Maharashtra’s Irrigation Scam, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 47, No. 41 (Oct. 13, 2012), https://www.epw.in/journal/2012/41/letters/maharashtras-irrigation-scam.html.

[45]VikasKahol, Shunted Out: Haryana Babu Ashok Khemka Pays for Axing Vadra Deal, India Today (Oct. 17, 2012), https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/haryana-babu-ashok-khemka-pays-for-axing-vadra-deal-118893-2012-10-16.​

[46]PTI, Ashok Khemka Got Transferred for the 46th Time in 22 Years, Millennium Post (Apr. 2, 2015), https://www.millenniumpost.in/ashok-khemka-got-transferred-for-the-46th-time-in-22-years-59701.​