New Delhi: The Supreme Court refused to give a direction to the Centre on Thursday to notify the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, which got the President’s assent in 2014 but is yet to be notified as law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud disposed of a public interest writ petition from the Parivartan NGO seeking protection to whistleblowers after the death of Satyendra Dubey, an officer of the Indian Engineering Service, who was murdered after exposing corruption in the Golden Quadrilateral highway construction project.
Counsel Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Centre had enacted the Whistle Blowers Act in 2011 and it got presidential assent in May 2014, but it was yet to be notified. He said the CVC was merely forwarding whistleblowers’ complaints to chief vigilance officers, who were middle-level officers in the ministries, as they could not hold a proper inquiry against superior officials facing complaints of corruption or other irregularities.
Mr Bhushan submitted that the Centre wanted to delay notifying the law as it had said that some amendments are to be brought into it. He urged the court to give a direction to the government to pass the law. He said the amendments suggested would take away the protection to whistleblowers. The provisions clearly said that if any information obtained by a whistleblower could not be obtained under the Right to Information Act, then the whistleblower would lose protection.
The CJI told solicitor-general Ranjit Kumar that such an anomaly cannot be accepted and the law cannot take away the protection.
However, Mr Kumar informed the court that when the law was examined, it was found that there were certain contradictions between the Whistle Blowers Act and the RTI Act, and Parliament had addressed this issue. Amendments were already passed by the Lok Sabha and they had been sent to the Rajya Sabha and they would most likely be passed in the coming Budget Session of Parliament.
Taking note of the Mr Kumar’s submissions, the bench disposed of the writ petition and gave liberty to the petitioner to take necessary action in accordance with the law if it was not satisfied with the amendments.
