Bhushan, whose efforts have resulted in the enactment of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, recently refused to reveal the name of the whistle-blower to the apex court citing danger to his life as the complaint was against former CBI director Ranjit Sinha for his "illegal" meetings with the accused persons in the 2G, coal scam and other cases.
An inquiry into a whistleblower's complaint should be completed in a time-bound manner and the "competent authority" should ensure protection to the complainant against victimisation, activist and noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has said. He also suggested that
Placing his suggestions for a comprehensive mechanism to deal with complaints before the Supreme Court in a decade-old PIL demanding better handling of the complaints and protection of their lives, Bhushan said the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) has been working for whistleblowers' rights and has drafted model rules which the government should accept.
Earlier, the court had asked Bhushan to place on record his suggestions as to how the whistleblowers' complaints can be handled.
The draft model rules proposed that on receiving the complaint, the competent authority shall make a discreet inquiry to be concluded within 60 days and the whistleblower should be informed about the person conducting the inquiry.
An impartial person should carry out the inquiry and submit the report to competent authority, who will have to ensure the protection of the complainant.
"The competent authority shall take action and give directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority within 15 days and for matter threatening the life of person within such time as to effectively protect such persons from being victimised," the draft model rules proposed.
In addition, it was suggested that compensation be paid to the whistleblower once the allegation of victimisation was proved. "If the allegation of victimisation stands established, the competent authority should ask the said public servant to compensate an amount of not less than Rs 1 lakh to the person who was victimised," Bhushan suggested.
Bhushan, whose efforts have resulted in the enactment of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, recently refused to reveal the name of the whistle-blower to the apex court citing danger to his life as the complaint was against former CBI director Ranjit Sinha for his "illegal" meetings with the accused persons in the 2G, coal scam and other cases.
After the murder of Satyendra Dubey for raising voice against corruption in National Highways Authority of India in 2004, the Whistleblowers Protection Act received the President's assent on May 14, 2014 but the same is yet to be notified. The government has also not framed any rules so far in terms of the Act.
Bhushan has contended that as per the Act, Central Vigilance Commission is the competent authority for employees of Central government or any other corporation established under the Central Act but "CVC has failed to act as an institutional bulwark against corruption."
He referred to the CVC's affidavit and said hundreds of serious complaints have been received against senior government officers for their involvement in corruption. However, CVC has not recommended any action against the officers nor has it done anything for protection of complainants.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}