Skip to main content

"Atrocious" provision in new whistleblowers amendment Bill: Officials Secrets Act to be invoked on seeking information

By Our Representative
Senior activists have taken strong exception to the Government of India proposal to amend the #Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 (WBP Act), introduced as an amendment bill in the Lok Sabha on Monday. Right to information (RTI) activist Venkatesh Nayak has said, while till now the government refused to implement the law, which aims to create a statutory mechanism for whistleblowing about corruption, abuse or misuse of power or authority, in a fresh move, it is coming up with several "unreasonable restrictions on whistleblowing."
Chatacterising it as the #NDA government's yet another move to "outdo everything that the previous #UPA government did between 2004 and 2014", Nayak says, the Centre is seeking to dilute Section 4(1), which is a "substantive provision that permits whistleblowing about wrongdoing in a public authority."
According to him, "Under the original Act a whistleblower was immunised from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in government." However, the Amendment Bill takes away this immunity -- "no officer or #RTI user may come forward to blow the whistle for fear of prosecution under the OSA."
Pointing out that "this amendment trashes the principle of ‘safe alternative to silence’ which should underpin all whistleblower protection laws", Nayak says, now, "a whistleblower will be prevented from making a complaint on all grounds under which information can be refused under the RTI Act -- privacy, trade secrets, foreign relations, fiduciary relationship etc."
Explains the activist, "Unless the whistleblower is able to prove that he/she obtained his evidence of wrongdoing under the RTI Act, he/she can be punished for attaching such records to his whistleblower complaint -- so no officer or RTI user will come forward to blow the whistle on wrongdoing unless he obtains the information after the concerned Information Commission orders its disclosure in public interest".
Then there is another amendment, to Section 6, which would prevent any person from even giving evidence or rendering any kind of assistance to the competent authorities under certain specified circumstances. "The competent authorities will have no option but to drop such whistleblower complaints", comments Nayak.
Further, says Nayak, in yet another amendment, "even an Under Secretary grade officer, if appointed as the designated authority, can in theory, prevent the PM or the CM from ordering an inquiry into a whistleblower complaint if he/she certifies that the matter relates to ‘national security’," calling it a "ridiculous" amendment to Section 5.
Nayak, who is with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, demands, "All righteous minded citizens who share a vision of a corruption-free India must demand that this amendment Bill be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for detailed deliberation so that citizens may provide inputs to the MPs as to why the major amendments will defeat the very purpose of the WBP Act."

Comments

TRENDING

Gujarat refusal to observe Maulana Azad's birthday as Education Day 'discriminatory'

By Our Representative
The Gujarat government decision not to celebrate the National Education Day on !monday has gone controversial. Civil society organizations have particularly wondered whether the state government is shying away from the occasion, especially against the backdrop of "deteriorating" level of education in Gujarat.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Visually challenged lady seeks appointment with Gujarat CM, is 'unofficially' detained

By Pankti Jog*
It was a usual noon of November 10. I got a phone call on our Right to Information (RTI) helpline No 9924085000 from Ranjanben of Khambhat, narrating her “disgraceful” experience after she had requested for an appointment with Gujarat chief minister Vijay Rupani. She wanted to meet Rupani, on tour of the Khambhat area in Central Gujarat as part of his Janvikas Jumbesh (Campaign for Development).

Violent 'Ajodhya' campaign in 1840s after British captured Kabul, destroyed Jama Masjid

Counterview Desk  Irfan Ahmad, professor at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany, and author of “Islamism and Democracy in India” (Princeton University Press, 2009), short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in Social Sciences, in his "initial thoughts" on the Supreme Court judgment on the Babri-Jam Janmaboomi dispute has said, while order was “lawful”, it was also “awful.”

There may have been Buddhist stupa at Babri site during Gupta period: Archeologist

By Rajiv Shah
A top-notch archeologist, Prof Supriya Varma, who served as an observer during the excavation of the Babri Masjid site in early 2000s along with another archeologist, Jaya Menon, has controversially stated that not only was there "no temple under the Babri Masjid”, if one goes “beyond” the 12th century to 4th to 6th century, i.e. the Gupta period, “there seems to be a Buddhist stupa.”

VHP doesn't represent all Hindus, Sunni Waqf Board all Muslims: NAPM on SC ruling

Counterview Desk
India's top civil rights network, National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), even as describing the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgement unjust, has said, it is an "assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution". In a statement signed by top social workers and activists, NAPM said, "The judgement conveys an impression to Muslims that, despite being equal citizens of the country, their rights are not equal before the law."

Would those charged for illegally demolishing Babri now manage a new Ram temple?

By Fr Cedric Prakash sj*
The long-awaited verdict on the contentious issue of the disputed land in Ayodhya was finally delivered by the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019. The judgement has come after a 70-year-old conflict filled with acrimony, divisiveness, hate and violence between sections of the Hindus and Muslims of the country. At the core of the issue was the Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute: was there a temple on the place where the Masjid was built? To whom should the land be given to?