The Government of India has been considering adopting a whistleblower protection law for several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the public interest Disclosure Act, 2002.In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced into the LokSabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India. The Bill was approved by the cupboard in June 2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed because the Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011 by the Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice.
WHISTLEBLOWING AND THE LAW
A whistle blower is a person, who exposes secretive information or activity within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct. The information of alleged wrongdoing are often classified in many ways: violation of company policy rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest national security, also as fraud, and corruption those that become whistleblowers can prefer to bring information or allegations to surface either internally or externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his/her accusations to the eye of people within the accused organization like an instantaneous supervisor. Externally, a whistleblower can bring allegations to light by contacting the third party outside an accused organization like the media, government, enforcement, or those that are concerned. Whistleblowers, however, take the danger of facing stiff reprisal and retaliation from those that are accused or alleged of wrongdoing.
Because of this, a variety of laws exist to guard whistleblowers. Some third-party groups even offer protection to whistleblowers, but that protection can only go thus far. Whistleblowers face action, criminal charges, social stigma, and termination from any position, office, or job. Two other classifications of whistleblowing are private and public. The classifications relate to the type of organizations someone chooses to whistle-blow on the private sector or public sector. Depending on many factors, both can have varying results. However, whistleblowing in the public sector organization is more likely to result in criminal charges and possible custodial sentences. A whistleblower who chooses to accuse a personal sector organization or agency is more likely to face termination and legal and civil charges.
Deeper questions and theories of whistleblowing and why people prefer to-do are often studied through an ethical approach. Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. Leading arguments within the ideological camp that whistleblowing is moral to take care of that whistleblowing may be a sort of direct action and aims to guard the general public against government wrongdoing. In the opposite camp, some see whistleblowing as unethical for breaching confidentiality, especially in industries that handle sensitive client or patient information. Legal protection can also be granted to protect
whistleblowers, but that protection is subject to several stipulations. Hundreds of laws grant protection to whistleblowers, but stipulations can easily cloud that protection and leave whistleblowers susceptible to retaliation and legal trouble. However, the choice and action became much more complicated with recent advancements in technology and communication.
In the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words like informer and snitch. However, the origins of the word go back to the 19th century.
The word is linked to the utilization of a whistle to alert the public or a crowd a few bad situations, like the commission of a criminal offence or the breaking of rules during a game. The phrase whistle blower attached itself to enforcement officials within the 19th century because they used a whistle to alert the public or fellow police. Sports referees, who use a whistle to indicate an illegal or foul play, also were called whistleblowers.
An 1883 story in the Janesville Gazette called a policeman who used his whistle to alert citizens about a riot a whistleblower, without the hyphen. By the year 1963, the phrase had become a hyphenated word, whistle-blower. The word began to be used by journalists in the 1960s for people who revealed wrongdoing, such as Nader. It eventually evolved into the compound word whistleblower. One of the foremost interesting questions with reference to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances do people either act on the spot to prevent illegal and otherwise unacceptable behaviour or report it there are some reasons to believe that folks are more likely to require action with reference to unacceptable behaviour, within a corporation, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the design and control organization, but a choice of options tor absolute confidentiality.
Anonymous reporting mechanisms, as mentioned previously, help foster a climate whereby employees are more likely to report or seek guidance regarding potential or actual wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The coming anti-bribery management systems standard, ISO 37001, includes anonymous reporting together of the standards for the new standard.
External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information’s severity and nature. Whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies. In some cases, external whistleblowing is inspired by offering monetary reward.
Sometimes it’s beneficial for a corporation to use an external agency to make a secure and anonymous reporting channel for its employees, often mentioned as a whistleblowing hotline. As well as protecting the identity or the whistleblower, these services are designed to inform the individuals at the top of the organizational pyramid of misconduct, usually via integration with specialised case management software. Implementing a third-party solution is often the easiest way for an organization to ensure compliance, or to offer a whistleblowing policy where one did not previously exist. An increasing number of companies and authorities use third party services in which the whistleblower is anonymous also towards the third party service provider, which is made possible via toll-free phone numbers and or web or app-based solutions which apply asymmetrical encryption.
Private sector whistleblowing
Private sector whistleblowing, though not as status as public sector whistleblowing is arguably more prevalent and suppressed in society today. Simply because private corporations usually have stricter regulations that suppress potential whistleblowers. An example of private sector whistleblowing is when an employee reports to someone in a higher position such as a manager, of a third party that is isolated from the individual chapter, like their lawyer or the police. In the private sector, corporate groups can easily hide wrongdoings by individual branches. It is not until these wrongdoings bleed into the top officials that corporate wrongdoings are seen by the public. Situations during which an individual may blow the whistle are in cases of violated laws or company policy, like harassment or theft. These instances, nonetheless, are small compared to money laundering or fraud charges on the stock market. Whistleblowing in the private sector is typically not as high-profile or openly discussed in major news outlets, though occasionally, third parties expose human rights violations and exploitation of workers. While there are organizations such as the United States Department of Labour, and laws in place such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations which protects whistleblowers in the private sector, many employees still fear for their jobs due to direct or indirect threats from their employers or the other parties involved. In the United States, the Department of Labour’s can take many types of retaliation claims based on legal actions an employee took or was perceived to take in the course of their employment. Conversely, if in the United States, the retaliatory conduct occurred due to the perception of whom the employee is as a person, they may be able to accept a complaint of retaliation. In an effort to overcome those fears, in 2010, the odd-FrankWall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were put forth to provide a great incentive to whistleblowers. For example, if a whistleblower gave the information which could be used to legally recover over one million dollars, then they could receive ten to thirty per cent of it. Whistleblowers have risen within the technology industry because it has expanded in recent years. They are vital for publicizing ethical breaches within private companies. Protection for these specific whistleblowers falls short; they often end up unemployed or worse- in jail. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act offers an incentive for private sector whistleblowers, but only if they go to the SEC with information. If a whistleblower acts internally, as they often do in the technology industry, they are not protected by the Law. Scandals, such as the Dragonfly search engine scandal and the Pompliano lawsuit against Snapchat, have drawn attention to whistleblowers in technology.
Despite government efforts to help regulate the private sector, the employees must still weigh their options. They either expose the corporate and stand the moral and ethical status, or expose the corporate, lose their job, their reputation and potentially the power to be used again. According to a study at the University of Pennsylvania, out of three hundred whistleblowers studied, sixty-nine per cent of them had foregone that exact situation; and they were either fired or were forced to retire after taking the ethical high ground. It is outcomes like that which makes it all that much harder to accurately track how prevalent whistleblowing is in the private sector.
Public sector whistleblowing
Recognizing the public value of whistleblowing has been increasing over the last 50 years. In the United States, both state and Federal statutes are put in place to guard whistleblowers against retaliation. The United States Supreme Court ruled that public sector whistleblowers are protected under First Amendment rights from any job retaliation when they raise flags over alleged corruption. Exposing misconduct or legal or dishonest activity is a big tear tor public employees because they feel they are going against their government and country. Private sector whistleblowing protection laws were in situ long before ones for the public sector. After many federal whistleblowers were scrutinized in high-profile media cases, laws were finally introduced to protect government whistleblowers. These laws were enacted to assist prevent corruption and encourage people to show misconduct, illegal, or dishonest activity for the great of society. People who choose to act as whistleblowers often suffer retaliation from their Employer. They most likely are fired because they are an at-will employee, which means they can be fired without reason. There are exceptions in place for whistleblowers who are an at-will employee. Even without a statute, numerous decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on grounds of public policy. Statutes state that an employer shall not take any adverse employment actions any employee in retaliation tor a good-faith report of a whistleblowing action or cooperating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit arising under said action. Whistleblowers can make unintentional mistakes, and investigations can be tainted by the fear of negative publicity. The end result was the sudden firing of seven people, false and public threats of a criminal investigation, and the death of one researcher by suicide.
It is probable that a lot of people don’t even consider blowing the whistle, not only due to fear of retaliation but also due to fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work.
Relationship at work and outside work
Persecution of whistleblowers has become a significant issue in many parts of the world:
Employees in academia, business or government might become aware of serious risks to health and the environment, but internal policies might pose threats of retaliation to those who report these early warnings. Private company employees, specifically, could be in danger of being fired, demoted, denied raises then on for bringing environmental risks to the eye of appropriate authorities. Government employees might be at an analogous risk for bringing threats to health or the environment to public attention, although perhaps this can be less likely. There are examples of ”early warning scientists” being harassed for bringing inconvenient truths about impending harm to the notice of the public and authorities. There have also been cases of young scientists being discouraged from entering controversial scientific fields for fear of harassment in the United States, and Whistleblowers UK and Public Concern at Work in the United Kingdom. Depending on the circumstances, it’s not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or perhaps fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is mentioned as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.
There is limited research on the psychological impacts of whistleblowing. However, poor experiences of whistleblowing can cause a prolonged and prominent assault upon staff well-being. As workers attempt to address concerns, they are often met with a wall of silence and hostility by management Some whistleblowers speak of overwhelming and persistent distress, drug and alcohol problems, paranoid behaviour at work, acute anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks and intrusive thoughts. Depression is often reported by whistleblowers, and suicidal thoughts may occur in up to about 10%. General deterioration in health and self-care has been described. The range of symptomatology shares many of the features of posttraumatic stress disorder, though there is debate about Whether the trauma experienced by whistleblowers meets diagnostic thresholds. Increased stress-related physical illness has also been described in whistleblowers. The stresses involved in whistleblowing can be huge. As such, workers remain afraid to blow the whistle, in fear that they will not be believed, or they have lost faith in believing that anything will happen if they do speak out. This fear may indeed be Justified, because an individual who feels threatened by whistleblowing, may plan the career destruction or the complainant by reporting fictitious errors or rumours. This technique, labelled as “Gaslighting”, is a common, unconventional approach used by organizations to manage employees who cause difficulty by raising concerns. In extreme cases, this technique involves the organization or manager proposing that the complainant’s mental health is unstable. Organizations also often attempt to ostracize and isolate whistleblowers by undermining their concerns by suggesting that these are groundless, carrying out adequate investigations or by ignoring them altogether. Whistleblowers can also be disciplined, suspended and reported to professional bodies upon manufactured pretexts. Where whistleblowers persist in raising their concerns, they increasingly risk detriments such as dismissal. Following the dismissal, whistleblowers may struggle to find further employment due to damaged reputations, poor references and blacklisting. The social impact of whistleblower through the loss of livelihood and family strain may also impact on whistleblower psychological well-being.
A whistleblower may also experience immense stress as a result of litigation regarding detriments such as unfair dismissal, which they often face with imperfect support or no support at all from unions. Whistleblowers who continue to pursue their concerns may also face long battles with official bodies such as regulators and government departments. In all, some whistleblowers suffer great injustice, that may never be acknowledged or rectified.
Conversely, the emotional strain or a whistleblower investigation is devastating to the accuser’s family.
Many whistleblowers have stated that they were motivated to require action to place an end to unethical practices, after witnessing injustices in their businesses or organizations. A 2009 study found that whistleblowers are often motivated to take action when they notice a sharp decline in ethical practices, as opposed to a gradual worsening. There are generally two metrics by which whistleblower determine if a practice is unethical. The first metric involves a violation of the organization’s bylaws or written ethical policies. These violations allow individuals to concretize and rationalize blowing the whistle. On the other hand, ”value-driven” whistleblowers are influenced by their personal codes of ethics. In these cases, whistleblowers have been criticized for being driven by personal biases.
In addition to ethics, social and organizational pressure is a motivating force. A 2012 study identified that individuals are more likely to blow the whistle when several others realize the wrongdoing because they might otherwise fear consequences for keeping silent. In cases when one person is causing an injustice, the individual who notices the injustice may file a formal report, rather than confronting the wrongdoer, because confrontation would be more emotionally and psychologically stressful Furthermore, individuals may be motivated to report unethical behaviour when they believe their organizations will support them. Professionals in management roles may feel a responsibility to blow the whistle in order to uphold the values and rules of their organizations.
Legal protection for whistleblowers
Legal protection for whistleblowers varies from country to country and should depend upon the country of the first activity, where and the way secrets were revealed, and the way they eventually became published or publicized. Over a dozen countries have now adopted comprehensive whistleblower protection laws that make mechanisms for reporting wrongdoing and supply legal protections to whistleblowers. Over 50 countries have adopted more limited protections as a part of their anti-corruption, freedom of data, or employment laws.
The Government of India has been considering adopting a whistleblower protection law for several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the public interest Disclosure Act, 2002.In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced into the LokSabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India. The Bill was approved by the cupboard in June 2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed because the Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011 by the Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice.The Whistleblowers Protection Bill, 2011 was gone by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011. And by the Rajyasabha on 21 February 2014. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 has received the Presidential assent on May 9, 2014, and therefore the same has been subsequently published within the official gazette of the govt of India on May 9, 2014, by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
Whistleblowing in the United Kingdom is protected by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Amongst other things, under the Act protected disclosures are permitted even if a non-disclosure agreement has been signed between the employer and the former or current employee; a consultation on further restricting confidentiality clauses was held in 2019. The Freedom to Speak up Review set out 20 principles to bring about improvements to help whistleblowers in the NHS, including Culture of raising concerns to make raising issues a part of the normal routine business of a well-led NHS organization culture free from bullying- freedom of staff to speak out relies on staff being able to work ma culture which is free from bullying. Training-every member of staff should receive training in their trust’s approach to raising concerns and in receiving and working on them. Support- all NHS trusts should ensure there’s a fanatical person to whom concerns are often easily reported and informally, a “speak up guardian”. Support to seek out alternative employment within the NHS -where a worker who has raised a priority cannot, as a result, continue their role, the NHS should help them seek an alternative job. Monitor produced a whistleblower policy in November 2015 that all NHS organizations in England are obliged to follow. It explicitly says that anyone bullies or acting against a whistleblower could be potentially liable to disciplinary action.
Whistleblowing tradition in what would soon become the United States had a start in 1773 with Benjamin Franklin leaking a few letters in the Hutchinson affair. The release of the communications from royal governor Thomas Hutchinson to Thomas Whately led to a firing, a duel and arguably, both through the many general impacts of the leak and its role in convincing Franklin to join the radicals’ cause, the taking of another important final step toward the American Revolution.
The first act of the Continental Congress in favour of what later came to be called whistleblowing cane in the 1777-8 case of Samuel Shaw and Richard Marven. The two seamen accused Commander in- Chief of the Continental Navy Esek Hopkins of torturing British prisoners of war. The Congress dismissed Hopkins and then agreed to cover the defence cost of the pair after Hopkins filed a libel suit against them under which they were imprisoned Shaw and Marven were subsequently cleared in a jury trial. In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are shielded from retaliation. However, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employee’s duties.
In the US, legal protections vary consistent with the topic matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state where the case arises. In passing the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the “patchwork and vagaries” of varying state statutes. Still, a good sort of federal and state laws protect employees who signalize to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions. While this patchwork approach has often been criticized, it also responsible for the United States having more dedicated whistleblowing laws than any other country.
There are comprehensive laws in New Zealand and South Africa. A number of other countries have recently adopted comprehensive whistleblower laws including Ghana, South Korea, and Uganda. They are also being considered in Kenya and Rwanda. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2008 that whistleblowing was protected as freedom of expression. And in February 2017, Nigeria also set up the whistleblowing policy against corruption and other ills in the country.
In business, whistleblowing hotlines are usually deployed as a way of mitigating risk, with the intention of providing secure, anonymous reporting for employees or third party suppliers who may otherwise be fearful of reprisals from their employer. As such, implementing a corporate whistleblowing hotline is often seen as a step towards compliance, and can also highlight an organization’s stance on ethics. It is widely agreed that implementing a dedicated service for whistleblowers has a positive effect on organizational culture.
Whistleblowing hotlines are sometimes also referred to as an ethics hotline or speak up a hotline and are often facilitated by an outsourced service provider to encourage potential disclosers to come forward. Navex Global and Expolink are samples of global third party whistleblower services.
In 2018, the Harvard Business Review published findings to support the idea that whistleblowing hotlines are crucial to keeping companies healthy, stating "More whistles blown are a sign of health, not an illness".
Bibliography - Wikipedia