Select Location


Written by:
Prachi Sethi
Published on

Whistleblowing is described as an act of a present employer or past employee who may have been involved in any organisation's unethical or unlawful conduct. The employee can usually go to the public or the administration, who are also known as the internal blowing and whistle blowers. A whistle blower reveals information about a workplace misbehaviour he feels violates law or endangers the welfare of others and talks to the public or environment with the purpose of exposing corruption or hazards. In reality, many who decide to blow the whistle have a strong sense of good and evil and want to make sure their voice of protest is heard correctly. Whistleblowing must be promoted since it is an effective and efficient means of reducing illegal behaviour. As a result, important laws have been introduced to protect whistle blowers.


  • It concerns an activity which is carried out with an organisation.
  • Any member of an organisation can raise a whistle blowing case.
  • The material usually shows that some of an organisation or some of its people have committed a major wrongdoing.
  • The dissemination of knowledge must be voluntary rather than legal, although the distinction is not often particularly apparent.
  • It should be carried out as a moral protest.


  • Internal: If the whistle blower tells the top officers in the organisation that it has not done well. Internal disloyalty, misconduct, discipline, insubordination, disobedience etc. are common themes of internal reporting.
  • External: If misconduct is communicated to those outside the company, such as press, public interest organisations or enforcement authorities, it is termed external whistleblowing.
  • Alumini: The former employee of the organisation, which is whistleblowing, is termed alumini whistle blowing.
  • Open: When it reveals the identity of the informant, Open Whistle Blowing is called.
  • Personal: Where one person is harmed by the organisational wrongdoings, such wrongdoings are reported to be known as personal whistleblowing.
  • Impersonal: If it is wrong, it is termed impersonal whistling. If it is wrong to hurt others.
  • Government: When the government officers make disclosures on wrongdoing, do anything or ethical procedures.
  • Corporate: When the misconduct at a company is disclosed, it is referred to as company whistle blowing.


Several threats, harassment and even assassination of different whistle blowers have taken place. In November 2003, an engineer, Satyendra Dubey, had been killed, Dubey blown whistle to the Golden Quadrilateral Project of the National Highway Authority. Two years later, Shanmughan Manjunath, an Indian Oil Corporation officer, was killed for screening a petrol pump that sold contaminated gasoline. On the basis of the occurrence called 'Manjunath,' a film has been created (2014).

Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2011 is a Parliament of India Act that provides for a system for investigating alleged corruption and mismanagement of the powers of government employees and also protects anybody in government bodies, projects and offices who discloses suspected wrongdoing. The misconduct may be fraud, corruption or mismanagement.

As part of a push to remove corruption in the bureaucracy of India, the act was authorised by the Cabinet of India and adopted on 27 December, 2011 by the Lok Sabha. The Bill became an Act on 21 February 2014 when the Rajya Sabha passed, which was approved on 9 May 2014 by the President.

Corruption is a societal evil that inhibits appropriate and equitable economic and social growth. The lack of adequate protection for complainants in relation to reporters of the corruption or wilful misuse of power or discretion causing demonstrable loss to government or the commission of a crime by an official is one of the impediments felt in eliminating corruption within government and the public sector.

It was determined to adopt a separate law to ensure that people reporting corruption or misuse of authority or discretion which leads to losses or disclosure of a crime by public servants have appropriate protection.


  • Companies in such cases are not subject to any procedure under Indian law. The policy, when such a policy exists, drives it. However, when a complaint is made, the substance of the problems mentioned is typically assessed and examined.
  • These complaints enable the firm to take action before any regulator knocks at its door and in good time.
  • The management of the firm has the primary responsibility of adopting fraud prevention and detection policies, processes and controls, however it is also the responsibility of the board of directors/audit committees to oversee the prevention and detection of fraud.
  • Directors of an enterprise have a fiduciary duty to behave in good faith among other things, the obligation to act for the best interests of the enterprise, its workers, its shareholders, and the community and the environment. They are therefore needed to communicate as and when requested.
  • The investigative team itself can be modified, taking account of the nature of the problems. There is no formula for straightjackets. In order to retain legal privileges, legal consultants, who collaborate with competent forensic teams as necessary, can also conduct such investigations.
  • There has also developed the way the statutory auditor is currently seeking information. It is not unusual for the statutory auditor to seek the Company or even the investigation team for specific information, and to ensure that the team has adequately examined the length and breadth of the claims. Where it is not satisfied, the Statutory Auditor rejected the signing of the accounts until they were satisfied and unless actions that were specified by them were not taken.



In essence, it can be argued that role of encouraging whistle blowing lays with both corporations and legislation. Companies have to provide for the pre necessary culture, backing of senior management and high-level corporate leadership for whistle blowing. And government not only has to frame, but also to enforce the rules controlling blowing systems and procedures. In general, the degree of blowing activity is not only dependent on the legal protection afforded to blowers, but also on the regulatory reaction as well. While the vigilance of employees and the increase in whistle blower complaints, the legislation on how such complaints are handled and the protection of whistle blowers is still uncertain and unfolded. For this purpose, it is essential to have a comprehensive reporting policy. Companies should be aware of the various differences in policy drafting. On the one hand, although corporations require a comprehensive process for investigation and resolution of complaints by whistle blowers, firms have to guarantee appropriate protection for whistle blowers through non-retaliation and anonymity policies (if the whistle blower prefers to remain anonymous). The strategy should also take into consideration the many countries in which global firms operate and guarantee that the legislation in each country is complied with. These can affect the efficacy of the inquiry itself. For example, the rules on data protection are constantly challenged throughout inquiries by the authorities. There are also a chance that a frivolous or malicious whistle blow might hurt the firm or its managers, which is obviously difficult to balance whistle blower rules. A culture of compliance needs to be established and reporting and anti-representation measures need to be reinforced. The time is needed to make "FEEL SAFE" workers. Needless to say, a mature whistle blower system can take some time to establish in India, which businesses and employees use responsibly.