IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF WHISTLEBLOWING IN DEFENCE COMPANIES: A

CASE STUDY OF BDL AND MIDHANI, HYDERABAD

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1.1 introduction

Whistleblowing, alternatively spelled as whistle-blowing or whistle-blowing, refers to the act

of an individual, typically an employee, disclosing information regarding activities conducted

within a “private or public organization that is considered to be illegal, immoral, illicit,

unsafe, or fraudulent”. Whistleblowers can utilize a range of “internal or external channels”

to convey pertinent information or make allegations. A significant majority of

whistleblowers, amounting to over 83%, opt to report their concerns internally to various

entities such as supervisors, human resources, compliance departments, or impartial third

parties within the organization. Their intention in doing so is to prompt the company to

acknowledge and rectify the identified issues. In addition to internal reporting channels, a

whistleblower may opt to disclose allegations to external entities, including but not limited to

the media, government bodies, or law enforcement agencies, thereby shedding light on the

matter at hand1. Whistleblowers face a genuine threat of retaliation, frequently enduring

significant consequences as a result of their decision to expose wrongdoing. The predominant

manifestation of retaliatory action is the sudden cessation of employment. Nevertheless, it is

important to acknowledge that there are additional measures that could be deemed retaliatory,

such as substantial augmentations in job responsibilities, significant reductions in working

hours, impeding the fulfillment of assigned tasks, or engaging in acts of harassment 2. Laws in

numerous jurisdictions endeavor to safeguard individuals who disclose information about

wrongdoing, commonly referred to as whistleblowers, and to establish a framework for

overseeing such disclosures. The legislation commonly exhibits varying approaches toward

whistleblowing in the public and private sectors. For claims to possess credibility and achieve

success, they must be substantiated by compelling evidence. This evidence serves as a basis

1
Bushnell AM. Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth ‐tellers as whistleblowers in changing cultural
contexts. Sociology Compass. 2020 Aug;14(8):e12816.

2
Weick KE. Sensemaking and whistleblowing. InWhistleblowing, communication and consequences 2021 Mar
25 (pp. 81-92). Routledge.
for the government or regulatory bodies to utilize in their investigations, thereby "proving"

such claims and ensuring that “corrupt companies and/or government agencies are held

accountable”.

The majority of whistleblowers tend to be internal whistleblowers, individuals who disclose

instances of misconduct involving a colleague or superior within their organization 3. These

disclosures are typically made through anonymous reporting mechanisms commonly referred

to as hotlines. One of the most intriguing inquiries regarding internal whistleblowers pertains

to the motivations and contextual factors that prompt individuals to either intervene

immediately to halt unlawful or otherwise objectionable conduct or to formally report such

incidents. There exist several rationales supporting the notion that individuals are more

inclined to engage in remedial measures regarding inappropriate conduct within an institution

when complaint systems are available that not only provide alternatives prescribed by the

planning and control entity but also offer a range of options ensuring complete

confidentiality4. The utilization of anonymous reporting mechanisms has been previously

discussed as a means to cultivate an environment in which employees feel more inclined to

report or seek guidance regarding instances of potential or actual misconduct, without

harboring concerns about facing retaliatory actions. The forthcoming ISO 37001 standard on

anti-bribery management systems incorporates anonymous reporting as a key criterion within

its framework5. On the other hand, external whistleblowers disclose instances of wrongdoing

to individuals or organizations external to the entity in question. In such instances,

whistleblowers have the option to disclose the wrongdoing to legal professionals, media

outlets, law enforcement entities, regulatory bodies, or various governmental agencies at the

local, state, or federal level, contingent upon the type of information involved. In certain

3
Strack G. Whistleblowing in Germany. InWhistleblowing 2017 Sep 8 (pp. 109-124). Routledge.

4
Ayres RM, Sauerbronn FF, Fonseca AC. Accounting professionals and whistleblowing: a typology of the
influence of institutional logics. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças. 2022 Apr 1;33:248-64.
5
Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective.
Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.
instances, the act of external whistleblowing is incentivized through the provision of financial

remuneration.

Organizations occasionally employ external agencies to establish a secure and anonymous

reporting mechanism for their employees, commonly known as a whistleblowing hotline. In

addition to safeguarding the anonymity of the informant, these services are specifically

designed to apprise the upper echelons of the organizational hierarchy about instances of

wrongdoing, typically through seamless integration with dedicated case management

software6. When internal compliance mechanisms are lacking, a company may find that

implementing a whistleblowing policy or employing a third-party solution is the simplest way

to ensure that employees are following the rules. An emerging phenomenon within the

corporate and governmental sectors involves the adoption of third-party services that enable

whistleblowers to maintain their anonymity, including from the service provider itself. The

preservation of anonymity is achieved by employing toll-free telephone numbers and/or web

or application-based solutions that employ asymmetrical encryption techniques.

1.2 Origin of the term Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing as the name speaks for itself means to blow the whistle. It is uncertain to

find out the origin of the term “Whistleblowing”. Then term is generally believed to be

derived from the whistle a train sounds to warn people to get off the track, or a sport referee

blowing a whistle to indicate a foul or rule infraction in game, (Available at:http://layman-

blog.blogspot.in/2014/05/whistleblowing-origin-meaning-problems,html. (Visited on

December 10,2015). or a English policemen (bobbies) blowing whistle to alert others to an

illegal act or to stop wrongdoing. (Available at:

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/whistleblower.htm. (Visited

on December 10, 2015). )

6
Latan H, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB. Social media as a form of virtual
whistleblowing: empirical evidence for elements of the diamond model. Journal of Business Ethics. 2021
Dec;174:529-48.
Earlier when a person raises his voice against any wrongdoing or mismanagement, he was

treated as an informer or snitches or traitor. But it was U.S. consumer activists Ralph Nader

who introduced the phrase ‘Whistleblower’ in the early 1970s so that the adverse imputation

reflected in other words like “informers” and “snitches” can be evaded. (Shikha Patheja,

“System of whistle Blowing in India”, 4, IJSR 361 (2015), available at:

https://www.reseachgate.net/publication/283083726_System _of_Whistle_Blowing_in_India

(Visited on January 12,2016).

Meaning of the term Whistleblowing and Whistleblower

Whistleblowing normally refer to public interest disclosure by employees about wrongful

acts, illegal or wrongful conduct within the organisation. It is the process of reporting of a

concern or issue to proper authorities about a wrongdoing within an organization. The

reported concern must be a genuine concern about a crime, breach of law, direct risk to the

security, vigour and wellbeing of others and to the environment. (Available at:

https://wbhelpline.org.uk/about-us/what-is-whistleblowing/ (Visited on December 21, 2015).)

The Scope of the phrase ‘whistleblowing’ is very broad and it denotes to a situation where

the general public/ proper authorities and the courts are informed about the fact of

arbitrariness, illegality or misconduct performed by the ‘Dominant Personality’. The term

‘Dominant Personality’ here refers to the State, its agencies and even the private employers,

who by character of their post and other means are able to cover up the unlawful activity.

(Praveen Dalal, “Technology is the Best Whistle Blower in India”, available at:

https://ptlb.in/iips/?=103. (Visited on April 13,2015). )

A Whistleblower is a being who reports to the public or same proper officer or agency

about pleaded fraudulent, illegitimate actions or any unlawful practices happening in an

organization. (Available at: http://www.esdaw.eu/whistleblower.html (Visited on May 1,

2015).

The pleaded illegitimate action may be breach of laws, rules which endangers the social

interests like health and wellbeing of others. There are two ways to revealing information,

i.e., internally or externally.

A Whistleblower is a person who blows a whistle or raises his voice against the

inappropriate, illegal or illegitimate activity going on inside the organisation and informs the

public or concerned authority. Such person could be an employee or any person who is

insider or outsider of an organisation. (Rajasree P R, “Whistleblowing: Indian paradigm and

Blemishes,” available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?

abstract_id=2258296&download=yes. (Visited on December 12, 2015). )

In simple words, it can be concluded that the disclosure of mismanagement,

misconduct, corruption, illegal activity etc. By a person, generally an insider (employee) of

the organisation to the proper authorities or to the public, is called Whistleblower.

Importance of whistleblowing

The primary object of whistleblowing should be to advance the public interest rather than

personal interest . In whistleblowing, there should not be any ulterior or selfish motive. Thus ,

the purpose of whistleblowing can be summarised as following:

(a) To draw attention of power authorities to unethical , inappropriate or illegal conduct

which has or may have adverse effects either for the organisation or to the public at

large. (Atmadeep Das, “Whistle Blowing”, available at:

https://www.slideshare.net/dasatmadeep31/whistle-blowing-33938027?

next_slidershow=1. (Visited on January 23, 2015). )

(b) To eliminate unethical behaviour in the workplace by disclosing the wrongdoing and

ultimately encourage a culture of integrity, transparency and accountability in

organization. (Ibid.)
 (c) It also covers those situations where an individual has the knowledge of any activity

which is harmful and has the courage to make the disclosure while others involved

are not aware of it or are reluctant to make the disclosure due to fear. (Ibid.)

Definitions of the term Whistleblowing and Whistleblower

The phrase ‘whistleblowing’ does not have any commonly agreed legal definition. However,

a common understanding of the concept emerges from various definitions that have been

developed overtime. Some of the important definitions of the term “whistleblowing” or

“Whistleblower” are as follows:-

1 The U.S. consumer advocate Ralph Nader, defines the expression whistleblowing as

“An act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest Overrides the

interest of the organisation he serves, blows the whistle that the organisation is

involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity. (Nader, Petkas, and

Blackwell, Whistleblowing(1972). Quoted in Nicholas M Rongine, Toward a

Coherent Legal Response to the Public Policy Dilemma posted by Whistleblowing,

American Business Law Journal, Summer 1985. Vol. 23,Iss. 2. )

2 According to Janet P. Near and Marcia P. Miceli, “the disclosure by organisation

members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the

control of their employers, to persons or organisations that may be able to effect

action.” (Janet p. Near and Marcia P .Miceli, “Organizational dissidence: The case of

Whistleblowing,” 4, JOBE 1 (1985), available at:

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/plus/99pc.html (Visited on January 20,2016).)

According to them, whistleblowing contains four steps:-

(a) The organization or employer is involved in any corrupt or illegal actions and this

forces a worker to think about reporting the concern.

(b) The worker measures the gravity of the corrupt or illegal action and collects

further information, and talks about the circumstances with staff.

 (c) The worker has variety of options, i.e. he can report the concern: he can resign

from his job or he can remain silent.

(d) Organisation associates or employer reciprocates against the Whistleblower. (Ibid

3. According to Koehn, “whistleblowing occurs when an employee informs the public of

inappropriate activities going on inside the organisation.” (Chanjyot Kaur, “Whistleblowing:
an Anti Corruption Tool” 1 IJARMSS 48 (2012), available at:
https://www.academia.edu/5450828/WHISTLE_BLOWING-AN-ANTI-
CORRUPTION_TOOL_INTRODUCTION (Visited on January 12,2016). )

4. According to the United Kingdom’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, (The

Committee is an independent, advisory non-departmental public body established in 1994. It
advises the prime Minister on ethical standards across the whole of the public life in
England. ) whistleblowing means, “raising a concern about malpractice within an
organisation or within an independent structure associated with it” (Guy Dehn,
“Whistleblowing & integrity: A New Perspective”, available at:
https://www.efoi.org.uk/pdf/corruptiongd.pdf (Visited on January 10,2016). )

5. According to the definition of the international Labour Organisation (ILO) whistleblowing

involves, “the reporting by employees or former employees of illegal, irregular, dangerous or
unethical practice by employers.” (ILO Thesaurus 2005, available at:
https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ILO-Thesaurus/english/index.him (Visited on January
12,2016). )

6. The term Whistleblower has been defined by R.M. Green. According to him, “A
Whistleblower is an employee who, perceiving an organisational practice that he believes to
be illegal or unethical, seeks to stop this practice by altering top management, or failing that,
by notifying authorities outside the organisation. (Ibid.).

Features of Whistleblowing-

Every act of revealing or disclosing corruption, illegal activity or inappropriate conduct

can’t be termed as whistleblowing. Various definitions discussed above bring to light a

number of key features of whistleblowing. Thus, for any disclosure to be treated as

whistleblowing following characteristics must be present.

( a ) Disclosure of Wrongdoing :-

The Whistleblowing must after to the disclosing of wrongdoing. The wrongdoing can be past,

Continuing or future. In case of past wrongdoings, the purpose of whistleblowing is to made

the wrongdoer accountable. In case of continuing and future wrongdoing, the purpose is to

and the wrongdoings or to prevent the happening of wrongdoings respectively and hold the
wrongdoer accountable for the same. (Kathleen Clark, “White paper on the law of

whistleblowing”, 2012, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?_id=2176293.

( Visited on March 12,2015).)

(b) Nature of Wrongdoing:-

The Wrongdoing which is disclosed includes a breach of Law, following any unethical practice
such as fraud, violation of laws, rules or danger to social interests such as, health and wellbeing
or corruption.

(c ) Non Public information:-

Information which is disclosed by a Whistleblower about an organisation must be non-public

information. Non- public information is that information which is not known by the general public.
(Conceptual and Regulatory Framework on Whistle Blowing, available at:
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/92704/10/10_chapter%202.pdf (Visited on April
12,2016). )

(d ) Serves Public interest:-

In place of personal grievance, there exists a public interest element in whistleblowing. The
wrongdoing must have a direct danger for security, health and safety of others. The aim of
whistleblowing is to advance the public interest. Thus, the disclosure should be made in the public
interest. A disclosure is in public interest when an individual reveals some information that tends to
show past, present or future improper conduct by a government official or institution in the exercise
of its functions to proper authority. (Ibid.)

( e ) Internal or External Whistleblowing:-

The act of whistleblowing can be performed either internally i.e. to the authority or employer
inside the institution or externally i.e. to the media or to law administration authorities like police.
(Ibid. )

( f ) It is a Voluntary act:-

Whistleblowing is purely a voluntary act of a person or group (NGO etc). There is no external force to
make an act of whistleblowing.(Ibid).

Significance of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing facilities the disclosure of wrongful acts or corruption that is against the

interest and ideals of the organisation. Its purpose is not to cause damage to the organisation.
 (Sonal Nagpal, “Whistle Blowing Mechanism- A Move towards Better Corporate

Governance”, 3 GJMBS 856 (2013), available at:

https://www.ripublication.com/gjmbs_spl/gjmbsv3n8_05.pdf. (Visited on July 1,2016). )

Thus, the importance of whistleblowing can be summarised as follows:-

( a ) Means to Democracy:-

Democracy demands people’s participation in decisions that affect their lives. Democracy is

a special a political arrangement in which people vote for those who will formulate laws that

touch them. However, today resolutions or policies formulated by every kind of institution

have effect on people must have knowledge about the resolutions made in the organisations

that are going to touch them. Whistleblowing performs a part in furnishing that information

that information and thus is medium to promote democracy. (Available at:

https://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998293 (visited on February

10,2016.).

(b) Tool to Check Corruption:-

Whistleblowing is recognised as a tool to reduce corruption or illegal activities in an

organisation by reporting about unlawful, unethical, corrupt or dangerous conducts taking

place in the organisation. Thus, whistleblowing is an important ant-corruption tool. (Available

at: https://wbhelpline.org.uk/about-us/what-is-what-is-whistleblowing/ (visited on December

21,2015). )

(c) Improves internal Organisational culture:-

Whistleblowing is also helpful in boosting the inner culture, management and

efficiency of organisation. (David Banisar, “whistleblowing: International standards

and Developments”, available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228124587_Whistleblowing_International_

Standards _and_Developments (Visited on March 19,2015).) Whistleblowing

promotes organisational learning and development through the reporting of

 misconduct that directly or indirectly acts against organisational goals, ethical

guidelines or legislation. (Marit Skivenes and Sissel C. Trygstad, “Whistleblowing in

local government: An Empirical Study of Contact patterns and Whistleblowing in 20

Norwegian Municipalities “, 39, SPS, 265 (2016)., available at:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/467-9477.12066. (Visited on

November 22,2015.) ) it ensures good working environment practice will not be

tolerated. It assures employees that their concerns are important and any type of type

of harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated against them.

The UK Committee on Standards in Public Life highlighted the significance of

whistleblowing to the interior life of the institutions by saying that when wrongdoing

is reported internally and it is investigated and addressed fairly and properly by the

authority, them it promotes healthy organisational culture within the organisation.

(Government of U.K.., 10th Report on getting the Balance Right Implementing

Standards of conduct in public Life (January, 2005), available at:

https://www.gove.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

336897/10thFullreport.pdf. (visited on January 1,2016.)

(d) Promotes Good Governance:-

Effective Whistleblowing policies are indispensable part of good governance in any

organisation. By having Whistleblower policy in an organization the employees

remain motivated to stand up against the wrongdoing. They may have the confidence

that they can report any wrongdoing without any worry of retaliation. Thus,

whistleblowing policies which are essential for good governance promote open

culture in the organisation which ultimately benefits the organisations, individuals and

society as a whole. (Available at:

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Whistleblowing%20Commission%20report

%20Final.pdf (Visited on February 10,2016). )

( e ) Ensures Government’s Accountability:-

 Today, the government possesses vast powers. It is significant to ensure that

government exercise these powers for welfare of society. In order to have check or

control on these powers, it is necessary to give access to the people to government

actions. (Abhimanyu Ghosh, “Open Government and Right to Information “,

available at: https://www.opengovguide.com/topics/whistleblower-protection/

(Visited on March 12,2016). Whistleblowing is a democracy right which is implicit in

the freedom of speech and enhances govern,ent’s effectiveness and further it also

advances public trust in government work.

(f ) Serves Public Interest:-

Whistleblowing laws are founded on the basic principles of freedom of speech and

expression and freedom of information. Since public is interested in actions of the

government so it is the duty of Government to facilities and encourage

whistleblowing Act, 2014 is the safe alternative to the silence and to serve the public

interest. (Available at: http://www.opengovguide.com/topics/whistleblower-

protection/ (Visited on June 23,2015). )

( g ) Beneficial to Society:-

Whistleblowing is also beneficial to society as public money is saved as early alerts

can be means to diffuse a potentially larger disaster. Further, by disclosing hidden

matter or concern that is crucially vital to welfare of the people or society .

Whistleblower present a chance to tackle larger societal apprehensions prior to the

injury is done to the society.( Transparency International Anti Corruption resource

Centre, Good Practice in Whistleblowing protection Legislation (WPL), available at:

https://www.u4.no/publiccations/ggod-practice-in-whistleblowing-protection-wpl/pdf.

(Visited on March 4,2016). )

( h ) Contributes in the Socio- Economic Development:-

Whistleblowing is also important for Socio-economy development of the country as

the act of blowing the whistle can help to guard against abuse and undergird the moral
 and economic efficacy of a society. Further, it also reduces waste and organizational

mismanagement and thus promotes responsible and accountable use of public

resources and property.

Private sector whistleblowing

The prevalence and suppression of “whistleblowing in the private sector” is a subject of

considerable debate in contemporary society. One instance of private sector whistleblowing

occurs when an employee discloses information to a superior, such as a “manager, or external

entities”, such as legal counsel or law enforcement authorities. Whistleblowing in the private

sector is generally not subject to significant media attention or public discourse in prominent

news platforms. However, there are instances where external entities bring to light instances

of human rights violations and worker exploitation. Numerous governments endeavor to

safeguard individuals who disclose sensitive information in the public interest 7. In the context

of the United States, various entities, such as “the United States Department of Labour

(DOL), and legislative measures, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the United States

Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organisations (FSGO), exist to safeguard whistleblowers

operating within the private sector”. Therefore, notwithstanding the endeavors of the

government to facilitate oversight of the private sector, employees are compelled to carefully

consider their alternatives. Individuals face a decision wherein they can either disclose

information about the company, thereby upholding moral and ethical principles, or disclose

such information and consequently face the possibility of job termination, reputational

damage, and potential difficulties in securing future employment opportunities. Based on

research conducted at the University of Pennsylvania, it was found that among a sample of

three hundred whistleblowers, a significant majority of sixty-nine percent had experienced

7
Van Portfliet M, Kenny K. Whistleblowing advocacy: Solidarity and fascinance. Organization. 2022
Mar;29(2):345-66.
negative consequences, such as termination or forced retirement, as a result of their decision

to expose unethical practices. The aforementioned outcomes contribute to the increased

difficulty in accurately assessing the prevalence of whistleblowing in the private sector 8.

Public sector whistleblowing

The appreciation for the significance of whistleblowing in the public sector has experienced a

notable increase within the past five decades. In the context of the United States, it is

noteworthy that legislative measures at both the state and federal levels have been

implemented to safeguard whistleblowers against retaliatory actions. The Supreme Court of

the United States has rendered a decision affirming that individuals employed in the public

sector who disclose information of wrongdoing are safeguarded against reprisals, as such

actions would infringe upon their rights protected under the First Amendment. Following

numerous instances of federal whistleblowers gaining significant media attention, legislation

was eventually enacted to safeguard individuals who expose wrongdoing within the

government. The enactment of these laws serves the purpose of mitigating corruption and

fostering a culture of accountability by incentivizing individuals to disclose instances of

misconduct, illegality, or dishonest behavior, ultimately benefiting the broader societal

welfare. Individuals who elect to assume the role of whistleblowers frequently encounter

adverse consequences in the form of retaliatory actions from their employers. The individual

in question has probably been terminated from their employment due to their status as an at-

will employee, which grants employers the prerogative to terminate employees without

providing a specific justification. There exist provisions that offer protection to

whistleblowers who are employed on an at-will basis. In the absence of specific legislation, a

considerable number of judicial rulings have consistently advocated for and safeguarded the

act of whistleblowing based on considerations of public policy.

8
ALTINTAŞ M, Özata M. Researching the relationship between organizational health and whistleblowing
behavior: education and health organizations version. Journal of International Health Sciences and Management.
2020 Apr 4;6(10):12-34
According to legal provisions, it is stipulated that employers are prohibited from engaging in

any detrimental employment actions against employees as a form of retribution for making a

sincere report regarding whistleblowing activities or for assisting in any manner during an

investigation, legal proceeding, or lawsuit associated with such activities. Federal

whistleblower legislation encompasses a statutory provision that safeguards the rights of all

individuals employed by the government. Within the framework of the federal civil service, it

is impermissible for the government to engage in any personnel-related measures or propose

such measures against an employee on the grounds of the employee's communication of

information that they reasonably perceived to indicate a breach of the law, severe

mismanagement, substantial financial inefficiency, misuse of authority, or a notable and

explicit threat to public safety or health. To substantiate a viable assertion, a federal employee

must provide evidence for several crucial components. Firstly, it is necessary to prove that a

disclosure of protected information was made. Additionally, it must be shown that the

accused official possessed knowledge of this disclosure. Furthermore, evidence of retaliation

must be presented, indicating that adverse actions were taken against the employee. Lastly, a

genuine and direct link between the retaliation and the employee's initial action must be

established.

Risks

Whistleblowing can give rise to three distinct categories of harm, namely individual harm,

damage to public trust, and threats to national security. Exposing the identity of a

whistleblower inherently poses a significant risk to their safety 9. Certain media organizations

often link terms such as "traitor" and "treason" to individuals who disclose sensitive

information, commonly known as whistleblowers. It is worth noting that in numerous

nations, the act of treason is punishable by capital punishment, irrespective of whether the

accused party has inflicted any physical harm. In certain circumstances, individuals who

expose wrongdoing, commonly referred to as whistleblowers, may find it necessary to leave

9
Olesen T. The whistleblower hero in cinematic dramatization. The Sociological Review. 2021 Mar;69(2):414-
33.
their country of origin to evade public scrutiny, threats of violence or death, and potentially

even criminal prosecution.

Whistleblowers are frequently afforded legal protection against retaliatory actions by their

employers. However, it is worth noting that instances of punitive measures have been

observed, including but not limited to “termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment,

and/or severe mistreatment by fellow employees”. According to a study conducted in 2009, a

significant proportion of whistleblowers, up to 38%, encountered various forms of

professional retaliation, such as wrongful termination. The inclusion of a citation is necessary

to support the information provided10. After being terminated, individuals who expose

wrongdoing may encounter difficulties in securing new job opportunities as a result of their

tarnished reputations, negative recommendations, and being subjected to blacklisting. The

psychological well-being of whistleblowers may be affected by the socioeconomic

consequences of their actions, such as the loss of livelihood and strain on family

relationships. Whistleblowers frequently encounter significant levels of stress due to legal

proceedings related to adverse consequences, such as unjust termination, which they

commonly confront with limited or negligible assistance from labor unions. Whistleblowers

who persist in addressing their concerns may encounter protracted conflicts with official

entities, including regulatory bodies and governmental departments. These entities have the

potential to perpetuate the phenomenon known as "institutional silence" practiced by

employers, thereby exacerbating the stress and challenges faced by whistleblowers.

Therefore, whistleblowers frequently endure significant injustices that remain unrecognized

or unresolved.

In certain instances, however, the act of whistleblowing may result in unintended harm being

inflicted upon individuals who are not directly involved in any wrongdoing. Whistleblowers

may inadvertently commit errors, while investigations can be compromised due to

10
Orhan U, Ozyer K. I whistleblow as I am a university student: An investigation on the relationship between
self-efficacy and whistleblowing. International Journal of Business Administration and Management Research.
2016 Mar 15;2(1):28-33.
apprehensions surrounding adverse public perception. An instance took place within the

Canadian health ministry, wherein a recently hired staff member erroneously concluded that a

substantial majority of the research contracts observed in 2012 were associated with unethical

behavior11. The outcome entailed the abrupt termination of seven individuals, the

dissemination of unfounded and publicized allegations regarding a potential criminal inquiry,

and the tragic loss of one researcher through suicide. The victims were ultimately

compensated with a substantial sum of money by the government, which included millions of

dollars for lost wages, damages caused by slander, and other forms of harm. Furthermore, an

additional CA $2.41 million was allocated towards the investigation conducted in 2015 to

address the false accusations.

Psychological impact

The extant body of literature concerning the psychological consequences of whistle-blowing

is relatively scarce. Nevertheless, negative encounters with the act of whistleblowing can lead

to a protracted and conspicuous detriment to the overall welfare of the individual who

chooses to blow the whistle. When workers endeavor to address concerns, they frequently

encounter a barrier of silence and hostility from either “management or colleagues”.

Depression is frequently disclosed by individuals who expose wrongdoing, commonly

referred to as whistleblowers, with a notable prevalence of suicidal ideation observed in

approximately 10% of cases. The phenomenon of overall decline in physical well-being and

personal hygiene has been documented. The spectrum of symptomatology exhibits several

similarities to posttraumatic stress disorder, although there exists a contentious discussion

regarding the extent to which the trauma encountered by whistleblowers satisfies diagnostic

criteria. Whistleblowers have also been reported to experience a heightened susceptibility to

physical illnesses associated with elevated stress levels. The potential psychological and

social pressures associated with engaging in whistleblowing activities can be substantial,

leading individuals to refrain from reporting wrongdoing due to concerns regarding potential
11
Kenny K, Fotaki M. The costs and labour of whistleblowing: Bodily vulnerability and post-disclosure
survival. Journal of Business Ethics. 2023 Jan;182(2):341-64.
negative outcomes such as personal setbacks and retaliatory actions. Certain whistleblowers

report experiencing significant and enduring psychological distress, substance abuse issues,

heightened paranoia in the workplace, intense anxiety, recurring nightmares, flashbacks, and

intrusive thoughts. The apprehension expressed may be well-founded, as an individual who

perceives a threat from whistleblowing may strategize to undermine the professional

trajectory of the whistleblower by disseminating fabricated inaccuracies or unfounded

speculations. The practice commonly referred to as "gaslighting" is a frequently employed

strategy utilized by organizations to effectively handle employees who present challenges by

expressing concerns. In instances of heightened severity, this approach entails the

organization or manager positing that the mental well-being of the individual lodging the

complaint is compromised. Organizations frequently employ strategies to marginalize and

segregate whistleblowers, thereby undermining the legitimacy of their concerns. These tactics

may involve casting doubt on the validity of their claims, conducting insufficient

investigations, or outright disregarding their disclosures. Whistleblowers may face

disciplinary actions, and suspensions, and be reported to professional organizations under

fabricated pretexts.

1.1.2 Who is a Whistle-blower

Whistleblowing, also known as whistle-blowing or whistle-blowing, pertains to the action

undertaken by an individual, often an employee, to divulge information regarding the

operations carried out within a private or public institution that is deemed to be unlawful,

unethical, illicit, hazardous, or deceitful. Whistleblowers can employ a wide array of internal

or external channels to effectively communicate relevant information or lodge allegations 12. A

significant majority of whistleblowers, amounting to more than 83%, choose to report their

concerns internally to various entities within the organization such as supervisors, human

resources personnel, compliance departments, or impartial third parties. Their intention in

12
Rosadi A, Marta MS, Supriadi D, Sanusi A, Somawinata Y. Career opportunity of whistle-blower in the
workplace: the role of privacy legislation and supervisor support. Heliyon. 2022 Oct 1;8(10).
doing so is to prompt the company to acknowledge and rectify the identified issues 13. In

addition to internal reporting channels, a whistleblower may opt to disclose allegations to

external entities, including but not limited to the media, government agencies, or law

enforcement authorities. Whistleblowers face a genuine threat of retaliation, frequently

enduring significant consequences as a result of their decision to expose wrongdoing. The

prevalent mode of retaliatory action often observed is the sudden termination of an

individual's employment. Nevertheless, there are additional actions that can be regarded as

retaliatory, such as substantial increments in workloads, significant reductions in working

hours, obstruction of task fulfillment, or engaging in bullying behaviors 14. Laws in numerous

jurisdictions endeavor to safeguard individuals who disclose information about wrongdoing,

commonly referred to as whistleblowers, and to establish frameworks governing the act of

whistleblowing. The legislation commonly exhibits varying approaches toward the disclosure

of wrongdoing in both the public and private sectors. The attainment of objectives by

whistleblowers is not always realized. To establish the credibility and efficacy of their

assertions, individuals must furnish compelling evidence that can be utilized by governmental

or regulatory entities to substantiate said claims 15. This evidence serves the purpose of

validating the allegations and ensuring that corrupt corporations and/or government agencies

are held accountable for their actions.

1.1.3 Corporate governance and whistleblowing

When examining the landscape of corporate governance in India, it becomes evident that

there exist numerous instances of effective corporate governance, alongside instances where

organizations have encountered challenges in implementing sound corporate governance

practices. In recent years, there has been a significant rise in the occurrence of corporate
13
Nie JB, Elliott C. Humiliating whistle-blowers: Li Wenliang, the response to Covid-19, and the call for a
decent society. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17:543-7.
14
Pramugalih AA. The Effect of Whistle-blower Protection and Personal Cost Towards Whistleblowing
Intentions. InInternational Colloquium Forensics Accounting and Governance (ICFAG) 2020 Dec 1 (Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 1-12).

15
Hanna C, Levine J, Moorman AM. College athletics whistle-blower protection. J. Legal Aspects Sport.
2017;27:209.
fraud and failures. As a result, regulators and governments have been compelled to enact

more rigorous regulations and policies to mitigate these instances of corporate fraud 16. The

notion of “corporate whistleblowing is a relatively recent development in the field of

corporate governance”. The concept of whistleblowing refers to the act of alerting an

organization or company in advance about instances of corruption or illegal activities

occurring within its operations17. Whistleblowing pertains to the action taken by a present or

past member of an organization to reveal a notification to a superior authority within the

organization or the wider public, regarding either hazardous misconduct or any misconduct

that has been instigated or concealed by the organization.

Whistleblowing can be conceptualized as the procedural mechanism through which an

employee or individual with access to pertinent information discloses instances of unethical

conduct occurring within an organization or company 18. According to the International

Labour Organisation (ILO), whistleblowing is characterized as the act of employees or

former employees reporting instances of “illegal, irregular, hazardous, or unethical practices

conducted by employers”. According to Michael Davis in his article titled "The Complicit

Theory," whistleblowing is regarded as a morally justifiable practice employed by employees

who express dissent or choose not to participate in any unethical or illicit activities occurring

within their organization or company19. The term "Whistleblower" remains undefined in

current statutory legislation, suggesting that lawmakers intended for the term to encompass a

wide range of situations and circumstances. In broad terms, a whistleblower can be defined as

an individual, often an employee, who possesses confidential knowledge about instances of

corruption, fraud, or abuse of authority perpetrated by high-ranking executives within an

organization.
16
Alleyne P, Pierce A. Whistleblowing as a corporate governance mechanism in the Caribbean. Snapshots in
governance: The Caribbean experience. 2017:176-98.

17
Al-Absy MS, Ismail KN, Chandren S. Corporate governance mechanisms, whistle-blowing policy and real
earnings management. International Journal of Financial Research. 2019;10(6):265-82.
18
Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective.
Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.
19
Pittroff E. Whistle-blowing regulation in different corporate governance systems: an analysis of the regulation
approaches from the view of path dependence theory. Journal of Management & Governance. 2016 Dec;20:703-
27
In numerous instances of corporate whistleblowing, it has been noted that employees within

an organization often possess substantial knowledge about instances of misconduct or

unethical behavior. However, they frequently delay reporting such activities due to

apprehension regarding potential repercussions, such as suspension or termination from their

employment. Every organization or company must possess a whistleblowing policy that

safeguards the anonymity of whistleblowers. Additionally, it is crucial to establish a

legislative statute that protects employees who engage in whistleblowing activities 20.

Moreover, through the implementation of an effective whistleblowing framework, an

organization or corporation can effectively discourage employees from engaging in illicit

behavior, while also facilitating the early detection of any misconduct. An effective

framework for whistleblowing would additionally empower the whistleblower to disclose any

form of misconduct without experiencing apprehension. Whistleblower protection policies

are an essential component of “internal controls, ethics, and compliance programs” 21. These

policies demonstrate an organization's commitment to preventing, detecting, and addressing

unethical conduct, thereby establishing credibility with shareholders and law enforcement

authorities.

1.2 Research Background

Corporate governance can be defined as the ethical framework that guides the operations of a

company or organization. Corporate governance serves as a framework of guiding principles

that inform the process of making strategic decisions in a manner that is both effective and

efficient, while also prioritizing transparency and considering the interests of stakeholders 22.

Within an organizational context, the collective body of individuals who hold a vested

20
Maisaroh P, Nurhidayati M. Pengaruh Komite Audit, Good Corporate Governance dan Whistleblowing
System terhadap Fraud Bank Umum Syariah di Indonesia Periode 2016-2019. Etihad: Journal of Islamic
Banking and Finance. 2021 Mar 30;1(1):23-36.

21
21.Meiryani DA, Huang SM, Lindawati A, Wahyuningtias DI, Purnomo AG, Winoto AG, Fahlevi MO.
Systematic Literature Review on Implementation of Whistleblowing System in Preventing Financial Accounting
Fraud. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2023 May 15;101(9):3305-15.
22
ALTINTAŞ M, Özata M. Researching the relationship between organizational health and whistleblowing
behavior: education and health organizations version. Journal of International Health Sciences and Management.
2020 Apr 4;6(10):12-34
interest in a company can encompass various key stakeholders, including but not limited to

the board of directors, management personnel, shareholders, employees, and clients. The

growth and stability of an organization are directly influenced by corporate governance,

which also has implications for “the integrity and reputation of the company”. Corporate

governance is a set of principles and practices that aim to promote transparency and

accountability within a company's board of directors and management. Its primary objective

is to ensure that all business activities are openly disclosed to investors, thereby fostering

trust and confidence in the company.

1.2.1 Statement of problem

The corporate sector in India has garnered significant attention in recent years due to a series

of controversial scandals that were brought to light by multiple whistleblowers. The recent

occurrence of the Infosys debacle has had a profound impact on the corporate sector, serving

as a significant scandal. The development of the whistleblower policy in India is currently

ongoing. In numerous instances, individuals employed by or affiliated with an organization

may refrain from disclosing instances of misconduct or malfeasance, as they experience

apprehension and trepidation23. A significant limitation of the whistleblowing policy in India

pertains to the omission of the private sector from the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011.

The failure to consider the recommendations outlined in the 174th report of the Law

Commission and the fourth report of the “Second Administrative Reforms Commission”,

published in 2007, demonstrates a disregard for these authoritative sources. In addition, it is

worth noting that the Whistleblower Protection Act underwent an amendment in 2014. This

amendment imposed limitations on individuals reporting instances of corruption, specifically

within the 10 categories outlined in the Act. These categories primarily pertain to disclosures

that are prohibited under the Official Secrets Act of 1923.

1.3 Review of Literature

23
Weick KE. Sensemaking and whistleblowing. InWhistleblowing, communication and consequences 2021 Mar
25 (pp. 81-92). Routledge
1.3.1 Concept of Corporate governance and whistleblowing policy

The recognition of the importance of upholding a strong and efficient corporate governance

structure in the day-to-day operations of an organization or company is widely

acknowledged. In the past few years, a sequence of noteworthy incidents, such as the

homicide of “Satyendra Dubey, the Satyam Computer Scandal, the Infosys Scandal, and the

Ranbaxy Scandal”, have shed light on the difficulties faced by “whistleblowers in India due

to insufficient legislative provisions”.

In response to the emergence of contentious scandals, certain companies such as "The

Heritage Food (India) Ltd", "Wipro", "Infosys", and "Tata Motors, Reliance Industries" have

implemented a whistleblower policy in recent times 24. This policy aims to safeguard the

anonymity of employees who seek to disclose any form of misconduct occurring within the

organization. Heritage Food (India) Ltd has established a whistleblower policy to provide a

platform for its employees to report any instances of unethical or improper conduct occurring

within the company. According to the company's whistleblower policy, all communications

made by the whistleblower are to be considered communications made with sincere

intentions. It is imperative that all forms of communication adhere to a written format, and

any disclosures made should be accompanied by substantiating evidence of unethical or

improper conduct25. The company would make every effort to ensure the confidentiality of

the whistleblower's identity unless legally mandated, to protect them from potential

harassment or victimisation. Upon receipt of any complaints regarding potential misconduct,

the management board will undertake appropriate measures to carry out a comprehensive

investigation.

The whistleblower policy, commonly known as the Ombuds Policy, was formally

implemented by Wipro Limited on April 15, 2003. The objective of this policy is to bolster

24
Pittroff E. Whistle-blowing regulation in different corporate governance systems: an analysis of the regulation
approaches from the view of path dependence theory. Journal of Management & Governance. 2016 Dec;20:703-
27
25
Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective.
Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.
the corporate governance of the organization and discourage employees from participating in

any manner of misconduct or impropriety. Upon the reception of any complaint, the assigned

Ombudsperson would initiate an investigation into the matter. The Ombudsperson would

exclusively receive information in written form, and the company would presume that any

communication initiated by the complainant is undertaken with genuine intentions 26. The

company will prioritize maintaining the confidentiality of the complainant's identity to

safeguard them from potential retribution or victimization. The whistleblower policy

implemented by Wipro Ltd establishes a specific timeframe during which individuals can

raise their concerns. According to the policy, complainants are required to submit all pertinent

information within three months from the point at which they became aware of the

misconduct. Reliance Industries Limited has implemented the Vigil Mechanism and

Whistleblower Policy, which outlines the prescribed procedure for complainants to adhere to

when making disclosures. The policy additionally requires the establishment of an Ethics and

Compliance Task Force, which will be responsible for examining all complaints filed by

whistleblowers or complainants. This task force will operate under the oversight of the Audit

Committee27. Upon examining the whistleblower policy implemented by these corporations,

it becomes evident that each of these entities has established multiple avenues for employees

to voice their concerns. It is worth noting that numerous multinational corporations, such as

Delloite and KPMG International, promote the practice of anonymous reporting among their

employees, whereas Indian companies do not actively encourage anonymous complaints.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that each company possesses a distinct organizational

structure and protocol through which whistleblowers can voice their concerns.

Whistleblowing protection laws and mechanism in India

26
Herbert WE, Agwor TC. Corporate governance disclosure and corporate performance of Nigerian banks.
Journal of Research in Emerging Markets. 2021 Jun 12;3(3):14-36.Meiryani DA, Huang SM, Lindawati A,
Wahyuningtias DI, Purnomo AG, Winoto AG, Fahlevi MO. Systematic Literature Review on Implementation of
Whistleblowing System in Preventing Financial Accounting Fraud. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology. 2023 May 15;101(9):3305-15.

27
Kalyani S, Mathur N, Gupta P. Does corporate governance affect the financial performance and quality of
financial reporting of companies? A study on selected Indian companies. Business Governance and Society:
Analyzing Shifts, Conflicts, and Challenges. 2019:105-25.
The legislative framework for whistleblower protection in India is currently in its early stages

of development, in contrast to the more established legislative frameworks observed in

countries such as the “United Kingdom and the United States of America”. Multiple

legislative measures have been enacted to establish regulations about the act of

whistleblowing and to provide safeguards for individuals who disclose information in the

public interest.

The Whistleblowing Protection Act, 2014

“Whistleblower’s protection is a policy that all government leaders support in public but few

in power tolerate in private”

Thomas M. Devine

On August 24, 1999, Shri N. Vittal, the former Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC),

corresponded with “the Law Commission of India”, expressing his apprehensions regarding

the safeguarding of individuals who, at great personal risk, disclose instances of corruption or

misconduct involving public officials. In the correspondence addressed to the Law

Commission of India, the author made mention of a discourse delivered by the former Prime

Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, wherein he expressed strong disapproval towards the

unrestrained and unregulated escalation of corrupt practices. In his request to the Law

Commission of India, the individual emphasized the necessity for the formulation of a bill

aimed at safeguarding the identities of whistleblowers 28. Furthermore, he underscored the

importance of adopting a principle of zero tolerance towards misconduct, which should be

embraced not only by the general public but also by government officials. “The Law

Commission of India, in its 179th report, developed the 'Public Interest Disclosure and

Protection of Informers' Bill 2002. This bill drew inspiration from the UK Public Interest

Disclosure Act of 1998, the Australian Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1994, the New

28
Halpin L, Dundon T. Whistle-blowing and the employment relations implications of the'Protected Disclosures
Act 2014'in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Journal of Management. 2017;36(3):221-32.
Zealand Protected Disclosures Act of 2000, and the US (Federal) Whistle Blower's Protection

Act of 1989”.

The Fourth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, which focuses on the

topic of "Ethics in Governance," emphasizes the importance of enacting legislation to

safeguard individuals who disclose information about wrongdoing, commonly known as

whistleblowers. In April 2006, the Ministry of Personnel issued a notification granting the

Chief Vigilance Commission (CVC) the authority to receive complaints about corruption

involving government officials or employees, and to initiate preliminary investigations into

such complaints. The government responded to the murder of Satyendra Dubey by

introducing the "Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures

Bill, 2010." This bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in December 2011 and later renamed the

“Whistleblower Protection Bill”. After extensive deliberation, “the Rajya Sabha approved the

bill on 21st February 201429. The bill received presidential assent on 9th May 2014, but it has

not yet been enforced. In the year 2015, an amendment to the Act was proposed in the Lok

Sabha via The Whistleblowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015”.

The primary objective of the parliament during the formulation of this legislation was to

establish a robust and effective mechanism for safeguarding the anonymity of

whistleblowers, while also establishing an efficient system for receiving complaints. The

Act's jurisdiction is restricted exclusively to the public sector, thereby excluding the private

sector. The legislation establishes measures to protect the anonymity of individuals who

report misconduct, thereby shielding them from potential retaliation or mistreatment. This

provision serves to promote a culture in which employees feel empowered to voice their

concerns regarding any form of wrongdoing, fraudulent activities, or corrupt practices. The

Whistleblower Protection Act of 2014 exhibits certain deficiencies, one of which pertains to

the absence of a prescribed procedure for complainants seeking to appeal orders issued by

29
Onyango G. Whistleblower protection in developing countries: a review of challenges and prospects. SN
Business & Economics. 2021 Nov 24;1(12):169.
relevant authorities30. The proposed amendments in 2015 introduced a provision that

mandated the disclosure of the complainant's or whistleblower's identities, effectively

prohibiting anonymous complaints within the framework of this legislation. The amendment

under consideration seems to be based on Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act of

2005. The final amendment, as presented, imposed limitations on the disclosure of

information falling within specific categories.

The Companies Act, 2013

Section 179 (9)

According to “Section 179 (9) of the Companies Act, 2013”, in conjunction with “Regulation

7 of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, publicly listed

companies must establish a "vigil mechanism31." This mechanism allows directors and

employees to report their concerns to the appropriate authorities. Clause 10 stipulates that the

vigil mechanism is obligated to undertake appropriate measures to safeguard the complainant

or whistleblower against any form of harassment or retaliation. Additionally, the clause

outlines the procedure for complainants who seek to directly address their concerns to the

chairperson of the Audit Committee in exceptional circumstances”. The legislation

additionally requires all listed companies to publicly disclose an updated report detailing any

mechanisms they have implemented on their official website. Section 177 of the relevant

legislation stipulates the requirement for the establishment of an Audit Committee and

additionally outlines the provisions that govern the functioning of said committee. The

amendment to Section 177 of the Companies Act in 2017 involved the modification of the

phrase "every listed company" to "every publicly listed company 32." Establishing a vigilance

mechanism is advantageous for the organization as it affords whistleblowers a platform to

30
Onyango G. Whistleblower protection in developing countries: a review of challenges and prospects. SN
Business & Economics. 2021 Nov 24;1(12):169.
31
Manchiraju H, Rajgopal S. Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) create shareholder value? Evidence
from the Indian Companies Act 2013. Journal of Accounting Research. 2017 Dec;55(5):1257-300.
32
Dharmapala D, Khanna V. The impact of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from India’s
Companies Act of 2013. International Review of law and Economics. 2018 Dec 1;56:92-104.
disclose instances of unlawful conduct, fraudulent activities, or any form of misconduct

perpetrated within the company.

Section 208 and Section 210

The additional powers granted to the Registrar or the Inspector for investigating company

records and subsequently submitting a report to the central government are outlined in

Section 208 and Section 210 of the Companies Act, 2013. If additional information is deemed

necessary, individuals are expected to furnish the government with all pertinent

documentation and offer any recommendations they may possess regarding the ongoing

investigation33. Section 210 of the aforementioned Act delineates the prescribed protocol that

must be adhered to by the registrar or inspector when conducting an inquiry into the

operations of a corporate entity.

Clause 49 of the SEBI’s Equity Listing Agreement

“The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), under clause 49 of its equity listing

regulations, has mandated that all listed companies establish a vigil mechanism and

implement a whistleblower policy. The aforementioned clause imposes an obligation on all

companies to ensure that their employees possess knowledge of the policy, enabling them to

report any instances of misconduct, fraud, or corruption, as well as disclose sensitive

information to the company. The clause additionally requires the companies to implement all

feasible measures to safeguard the directors and the complainant against any form of

harassment and victimization34. To incentivize employees to voice their concerns, the

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has implemented a system of rewards”.

Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order 2020 [CARO 2020]

To enhance the implementation of corporate governance principles within Indian companies,

the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a directive requiring all listed companies to

33
Yadav K, Mahajan A. India. InThe World Guide to Sustainable Enterprise 2017 Sep 8 (pp. 57-63). Routledge.
34
Sahasranamam S, Arya B, Sud M. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility in an emerging
market. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2020 Dec;37:1165-92.
disclose all whistleblower complaints to the auditor 35. Furthermore, these complaints must be

explicitly documented in the auditor's published report.

1.3.3 Notable Cases of Whistleblowing in India

When employees who adhere to ethical standards become aware of any misconduct or

unethical practices within their organization, they typically choose to voice their concerns. It

is widely recognized that whistleblowing carries inherent risks, such as potential harm to

one's employment status and the possibility of facing harassment or victimization.

Nevertheless, these individuals willingly take on these risks to expose any wrongdoing.

Satyendra Dubey

“Satyendra Dubey, a youthful project manager employed by the National Highway Authority

of India, assumed the role of project director for the Golden Quadrilateral Corridor Project”.

During the aforementioned project, Satyendra Dubey identified certain irregularities of an

uncertain nature within the financial department, leading to the suspension of three engineers

who were found to be involved in said irregularities. Additionally, it was discovered that the

NHAI exhibited a blatant disregard for the established guidelines by permitting sub-

contracting practices, resulting in the utilization of inferior-quality materials by the engineers.

Satyendra Dubey was subsequently reassigned to a separate project located in Gaya, which

was also being executed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). During his

tenure there, Dubey discerned that the fraudulent activity was not confined to a singular

location, but rather persisted across multiple sites, implicating numerous high-ranking

officials and influential politicians. Satyendra Dubey, an employee known for his integrity,

composed a letter directed to the former Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, wherein

he articulated his apprehensions regarding financial discrepancies and various other

irregularities36. These irregularities encompassed the utilization of substandard materials,

subcontracting practices, and similar matters. The author of the correspondence made an

35
Talbot L. Critical company law. Routledge; 2015 Aug 11.
36
Pandit KK. Legal Protection of Corporate Whistleblowers in India. Jus Corpus LJ. 2022;3:1060.
explicit request to the prime minister, emphasizing the importance of maintaining

confidentiality regarding their identity. The correspondence authored by the individual,

accompanied by the complete set of supporting documents, was subsequently transmitted to

the Ministry of Transport and Highways. Consequently, the vigilance officer of the National

Highways Authority of India (NHAI) expressed a substantial amount of criticism towards

him. On November 27th, the untimely demise of Satyendra Dubey occurred. While the exact

cause of his death could not be definitively attributed to the scam, there were suspicions that

his demise resulted from his resistance to a robbery attempt.

Manjunath Shanmugam

Manjunath Shanmugam served as a marketing manager at the Indian Oil Corporation during

his tenure as an employee. During his tenure, he issued a directive to close down two petrol

stations in Lakhimpur Kheri, situated in Lucknow, upon discovering that both establishments

were engaged in the sale of fuel that had been adulterated 37. The individual in question issued

an order to temporarily close the petrol pumps for three months. However, upon discovering

that the pumps had resumed operations within a month, the individual conducted an

unannounced inspection to shut them down. Tragically, the individual was violently killed by

the petrol pump owner and several associates affiliated with the local criminal organization.

Dinesh Thakur and the Ranbaxy Debacle

Dinesh Thakur commenced his tenure at Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical enterprise, in 2003.

However, in 2005, he was compelled to depart from the organization after disclosing to his

superiors and upper-level administration the existence of questionable manufacturing

practices being carried out by the company. Dinesh Thakur effectively presented evidence to

U.S. regulators and authorities, demonstrating that Ranbaxy had engaged in fraudulent

activities, including the falsification of drug data, and had also violated principles of good

management. Dinesh Thakur played a crucial role in exposing the malpractices carried out by

37
Kumar S. Whistle blowing: Truth to power. International Journal of InterdisciplinaryResearch Centre.
2016;2(2):1-2.
Ranbaxy, while also presenting authorities and regulators with substantial evidence

demonstrating the company's involvement in the production and distribution of adulterated

pharmaceuticals38. The pharmaceutical company entered a plea of guilt for all felony charges

and consented to a settlement amount of $500 million to resolve the case. Dinesh Thakur

received a monetary sum of 48 million dollars as an award.

Infosys Whistleblower Case

On October 21, 2019, the Chairman of Infosys disclosed that the audit committee conducted a

comprehensive investigation and found no substantiated basis for the accusation directed at

“CEO Salil Parekh and CEO Nilanjan Roy”. In a formal statement, Chairman Nandan

Nilekani announced that the company has been presented with complaints by a group of

employees who identify themselves as "Ethical Employees 39." These employees have accused

the executives of engaging in financial impropriety and employing unethical strategies to

enhance the company's profits. In his statement, the chairman additionally noted that

following the complaint, an investigation was carried out by the audit committee in

collaboration with an independent legal counsel, resulting in the issuance of the findings. As

per their assertion, no substantiation was found regarding any form of fiscal misconduct, and

the evidence presented to them, comprising video recordings and emails, was deemed lacking

in credibility.

1.4 Need and Importance of the Study

The potential for whistleblowing appears promising in the context of India. In recent years,

the exposure of numerous scandals has prompted a growing number of companies to adopt a

robust and effective whistleblower policy. The Whistleblower Policy holds significant

importance within the corporate structure of organizations. Successful implementation of a

robust whistleblowing framework has the potential to facilitate the identification of various

38
Bate R, Mathur A, Lever HM, Thakur D, Graedon J, Cooperman T, Mason P, Fox ER. Generics substitution,
bioequivalence standards, and international oversight: complex issues facing the FDA. Trends in
pharmacological sciences. 2016 Mar 1;37(3):184-91.
39
BHATIA S. WHISTLEBLOWING IN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE: A STEP TOWARDS BETTER
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. CHIEF PATRON.
forms of misconduct, while also serving as a deterrent for employees engaging in unethical

behavior. When implementing a whistleblowing framework, the company must incorporate

sufficient measures to protect the anonymity of the whistleblower 40. Additionally, the

company should consider implementing an incentive mechanism that rewards whistleblowers

who raise concerns about wrongdoing or provide evidence of the company's involvement in

any form of misconduct.

References

Al-Absy MS, Ismail KN, Chandren S. Corporate governance mechanisms, whistle-blowing

policy, and real earnings management. International Journal of Financial Research.

2019;10(6):265-82.

Alleyne P, Pierce A. Whistleblowing as a corporate governance mechanism in the Caribbean.

Snapshots in governance: The Caribbean experience. 2017:176-98.

ALTINTAŞ M, Özata M. Researching the relationship between organizational health and

whistleblowing behavior: education and health organizations version. Journal of

International Health Sciences and Management. 2020 Apr 4;6(10):12-34.

Ayres RM, Sauerbronn FF, Fonseca AC. Accounting professionals and whistleblowing: a

typology of the influence of institutional logics. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças.

2022 Apr 1;33:248-64.

Bate R, Mathur A, Lever HM, Thakur D, Graedon J, Cooperman T, Mason P, Fox ER.

Generics substitution, bioequivalence standards, and international oversight: complex

issues facing the FDA. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2016 Mar 1;37(3):184-91.

BHATIA S. WHISTLEBLOWING IN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE: A STEP TOWARDS

BETTER CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. CHIEF PATRON.

40
Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria in perspective.
Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.
Bushnell AM. Reframing the whistleblower in research: Truth ‐tellers as whistleblowers in

changing cultural contexts. Sociology Compass. 2020 Aug;14(8):e12816.

Dharmapala D, Khanna V. The impact of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence

from India’s Companies Act of 2013. International Review of Law and Economics.

2018 Dec 1;56:92-104.

Halpin L, Dundon T. Whistle-blowing and the employment relations implications of the

'Protected Disclosures Act 2014'in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Journal of

Management. 2017;36(3):221-32.

Hanna C, Levine J, Moorman AM. College athletics whistle-blower protection. J. Legal

Aspects Sport. 2017;27:209.

Herbert WE, Agwor TC. Corporate governance disclosure and corporate performance of

Nigerian banks. Journal of Research in Emerging Markets. 2021 Jun 12;3(3):14-

36.Meiryani DA, Huang SM, Lindawati A, Wahyuningtias DI, Purnomo AG, Winoto

AG, Fahlevi MO. Systematic Literature Review on Implementation of

Whistleblowing System in Preventing Financial Accounting Fraud. Journal of

Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2023 May 15;101(9):3305-15.

Kalyani S, Mathur N, Gupta P. Does corporate governance affect the financial performance

and quality of financial reporting of companies? A study on selected Indian

companies. Business Governance and Society: Analyzing Shifts, Conflicts, and

Challenges. 2019:105-25.

Kenny K, Fotaki M. The costs and labor of whistleblowing: Bodily vulnerability and post-

disclosure survival. Journal of Business Ethics. 2023 Jan;182(2):341-64.

Kumar S. Whistleblowing: Truth to power. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research

Centre. 2016;2(2):1-2.
Latan H, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB. Social media as a form of

virtual whistleblowing: empirical evidence for elements of the diamond model.

Journal of Business Ethics. 2021 Dec;174:529-48.

Maisaroh P, Nurhidayati M. Pengaruh Komite Audit, Good Corporate Governance dan

Whistleblowing System terhadap Fraud Bank Umum Syariah di Indonesia Periode

2016-2019. Etihad: Journal of Islamic Banking and Finance. 2021 Mar 30;1(1):23-36.

Manchiraju H, Rajgopal S. Does corporate social responsibility (CSR) create shareholder

value? Evidence from the Indian Companies Act 2013. Journal of Accounting

Research. 2017 Dec;55(5):1257-300.

Meiryani DA, Huang SM, Lindawati A, Wahyuningtias DI, Purnomo AG, Winoto AG,

Fahlevi MO. Systematic Literature Review on Implementation of Whistleblowing

System in Preventing Financial Accounting Fraud. Journal of Theoretical and Applied

Information Technology. 2023 May 15;101(9):3305-15.

Nie JB, Elliott C. Humiliating whistle-blowers: Li Wenliang, the response to COVID-19, and

the call for a decent society. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2020 Dec;17:543-7.

Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria

in perspective. Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.

Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria

in perspective. Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.

Nwoke U. Whistle-blowing as a corporate governance mechanism: South Africa and Nigeria

in perspective. Journal of Corporate Law Studies. 2019 Jul 3;19(2):421-50.

Olesen T. The whistleblower hero in cinematic dramatization. The Sociological Review. 2021

Mar;69(2):414-33.

Onyango G. Whistleblower protection in developing countries: a review of challenges and

prospects. SN Business & Economics. 2021 Nov 24;1(12):169.

Orhan U, Ozyer K. I whistleblow as I am a university student: An investigation on the

relationship between self-efficacy and whistleblowing. International Journal of

Business Administration and Management Research. 2016 Mar 15;2(1):28-33.

Pandit KK. Legal Protection of Corporate Whistleblowers in India. Jus Corpus LJ.

2022;3:1060.

Pittroff E. Whistle-blowing regulation in different corporate governance systems: an analysis

of the regulation approaches from the view of path dependence theory. Journal of

Management & Governance. 2016 Dec;20:703-27.

Pittroff E. Whistle-blowing regulation in different corporate governance systems: an analysis

of the regulation approaches from the view of path dependence theory. Journal of

Management & Governance. 2016 Dec;20:703-27.

Pramugalih AA. The Effect of Whistle-blower Protection and Personal Cost Towards

Whistleblowing Intentions. International Colloquium Forensics Accounting and

Governance (ICFAG) 2020 Dec 1 (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-12).

Rosadi A, Marta MS, Supriadi D, Sanusi A, Somawinata Y. Career opportunity of whistle-

blower in the workplace: the role of privacy legislation and supervisor support.

Heliyon. 2022 Oct 1;8(10).

Sahasranamam S, Arya B, Sud M. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility in

an emerging market. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 2020 Dec;37:1165-92.

Strack G. Whistleblowing in Germany. InWhistleblowing 2017 Sep 8 (pp. 109-124).

Routledge.

Talbot L. Critical company law. Routledge; 2015 Aug 11.

Van Portfliet M, Kenny K. Whistleblowing advocacy: Solidarity and fascinance.

Organization. 2022 Mar;29(2):345-66.

Weick KE. Sensemaking and whistleblowing. InWhistleblowing, communication, and

consequences 2021 Mar 25 (pp. 81-92). Routledge.

Yadav K, Mahajan A. India. In The World Guide to Sustainable Enterprise 2017 Sep 8 (pp.

57-63). Routledge.