Even after four-five years of running the Whistleblowers Resolution, there are no more than six cases where people have complained about harassment or have said their identities were revealed or that the CVC did not protect them. And that’s out of over 1,500 complaints that the CVC has handled. The few individuals who are not happy are a very small number. Those cases are all sub-judice so I won’t comment on them. In almost 16-17% of all the complaints that came to us under resolution, some kind of punishment has been given. That shows it has proved to be an effective instrument to fight corruption.
The facts many whistleblowers tell you are not exactly the full facts. So, to criticise either CVC or any other organisation based on their version would not be fair. One can look at our affidavits in courts, which will show the facts.
Moreover, the current draft of the Bill is a significant improvement. Under the Whistleblowers’ Resolution, the CVC’s role is advisory in nature and not mandatory. In the proposed Bill, in respect of harassment to a whistleblower, CVC’s intervention through an advice will be mandatory. It is a significant change. However, even in case of disciplinary proceedings, some of our recommendations should be mandatory.
The real purpose of a whistleblower is to highlight cases of corruption so as to serve a public purpose. However, the problem is that a very large number of cases are of a personal nature. Also, in many cases, the whistleblowers are under the state jurisdiction. The CVC has no jurisdiction over them or any state government agencies, but they indirectly blame the CVC.
The total strength of the CVC is also inadequate. We have been asking government to strengthen it.
?(The reporter met Pratyush Sinha before he demitted the CVC office on September 6)