Calling all Dubeys: it isn’t ideal but at least a system’s in place

The resolution, issued on April 21 following the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Dubey murder case—exposed by The Indian Express—is an ad hoc measure pending legislation.

And Shankar admits as much. Speaking to The Indian Express, Shankar said: ‘‘If Satyendra Dubey had come to me earlier, I would not have been able to do what I can do for him today. This is a good begining but it doesn’t go far enough.’’

Reason? One, the Whistle Blowers Act, drafted by the Law Commission and being examined by the Government, empowered the designated agency (in this case, the CVC) to issue directives on action to be taken against Government officials. The resolution, however, allows him to merely issue ‘‘advice’’ to the departments concerned once whistleblowers’ complaints have been investigated.

Two, Shankar said, should criminality be established, the Law Commission recommended that the designated agency can directly ask for prosecution of the errant Government officials. But as per the present resolution, sanction for prosecution is needed.

The CVC said that a couple of complaints had already been received after the resolution had been notified. ‘‘Complaints have not exactly begun pouring in but we have the system in place,’’ said Shankar. ‘‘I am happy the resolution has been issued but its impact will entirely depend on the response of the people. What we need is quality complaints, not motivated ones. I do expect that a lot of muck will come in. There will be all sorts of whistles and cat calls we will receive.’’

He explained that the CVC’s new assignment was actually an extension of their original brief. ‘‘The difference will be that in the case of complaints filed by whistleblowers, we will be issuing weightier advice and the quality of the charges will be better distilled. We will virtually be writing the chargesheets for the Government Departments. Action on this class of complaints will be time-bound.’’

Shankar said that before the resolution was drafted, he had only been informally asked if he was willing to take on the new resonsibility. There was no other dialogue on the subject. He was now issuing a detailed press note on the procedures to be followed by whistleblowers and will convene a meeting with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) since protection will have to be provided for complainants who fear they may be eliminated.

He said the CVC will carry out this new responsibility with their existing staff, infrastructure and budgets.

The CVC admitted it was possible that a large number of whistle blowers would say there was a threat to his life. ‘‘This (providing security) is the vague area in the resolution. I don’t have an NSG (National Security Guard) at my command and that is where the MHA will come in. People are not going to be killed just because they have filed a complaint with the CVC. And it is only in cases where the stakes are high that protection will be provided.’’