Standing Committee's recommendations on the Whistleblower's Bill

Kaushiki - June 17, 2011

The government is considering a number of measures to tackle corruption such as the formation of the office of the Lokpal or Ombudsman to investigate corruption cases, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 that requires judges to declare their assets, lays down enforceable standards of conduct for judges, and establishes a process for removal of the Supreme Court and High Court judges (see PRS Analysis) and the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010. In 2004, following the death of whistleblower Satyendra Dubey, the government issued a notification laying down certain guidelines for whistleblowing and protecting whistleblowers. It introduced the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010 in August 2010 to give statutory backing to the 2004 government resolution. Commonly known as the Whistleblower’s Bill, it seeks to protect whistleblowers i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power or criminal offence by a public servant. It designates the Central and State Vigilance Commissions to receive disclosures from whistleblowers and lays down safeguards for protection of whistleblowers (see PRS Analysis). The Bill was referred to the Departmentally related Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Committee presented its report on June 9, 2011. Key recommendations of the Standing Committee

§ The Bill seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power by a public servant. The Committee broadly agreed with the provisions of the Bill but hoped that the government would consider the recommendations and adopt them wherever found appropriate.
§ The Bill covers any complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; wilful misuse of power, and a criminal offence by a public servant. The Committee suggested that the scope of the Bill may be widened to include offences such as maladministration and human rights violations. Specifically, the Bill should cover accrual of wrongful gain to a third party. Also, the definition of “public servant” in the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be adopted for this Bill.
§ The Committee proposed that the defence forces and intelligence organisations should be included within the ambit of the Bill. There could be reasonable exceptions based on operational needs of the forces. Alternately, a separate authority could be set up for these exempted agencies. It added that the Bill should cover members of the Council of Ministers, the judiciary (including higher judiciary) and regulatory authorities.
§ The Bill states that a public interest disclosure can be made only to the Central or State Vigilance Commissions (VCs). The Committee is of the opinion that this may restrict access especially to population in remote areas. It recommended that the Rules should provide for a smooth and convenient system. The Committee added that if there are multiple points at which complaints can be made, the identity of the complainant should be strictly protected.
§ The Bill does not allow anonymous complaints. The Committee however suggested that if the anonymous complaints have supporting documents that substantiates the claims, the VCs can investigate it. It also advised that an alternative mechanism could be set up within or outside the Bill for inquiring into anonymous complaints.
§ The Committee recommended that there should be a foolproof mechanism to ensure that the identity of the complainant is not compromised with at any cost. This is especially important because without such a mechanism it would deter prospective complainants due to fear of harassment and victimisation.
§ The Bill allows the VCs to reveal the identity of the complainant to the head of the organisation if it is necessary to do so. The Committee recommended that the identity of the complainant should not be revealed to the head of the organisation without the written consent of the complainant.
§ The Committee felt that undue burden should not be placed on the complainant to provide proof to substantiate his case. As long as he is able to make out a prima facie case, the VCs should follow up on the case.
§ The Committee is of the view that the VCs should inform the complainant about the outcome of the complaint. Also, the VCs should give reasons if it decides to dismiss a complaint and the complainant should be given a reasonable hearing if he is not satisfied with the dismissal.
§ The Committee proposed that there should be a time limit for conducting discreet inquiry by the VCs, for inquiry by the head of the organisation and for taking action on the recommendations of the VCs. The authority would have to give reasons in writing if it wants the time limit to be extended. There should also be some mechanism to ensure that the directions of the VC are not avoided to protect the wrongdoer.
§ The Bill states that the VCs shall not entertain any complaints made five years after the action. However, the Committee is not convinced that this restriction should be prescribed. If at all there has to be a time limit, exceptions should be made in case of complaints which prima facie reveal offences of a grave nature.
§ The Committee recommended that the term “victimisation” should be defined and the whistleblower should be provided with sufficient protection to protect him from violence. Also, witnesses and other persons who support the whistleblower should be accorded the same protection.
§ The Committee strongly recommended that there should be a mechanism to ensure that the orders of the VCs are complied with. Stringent action should be taken against any person who does not comply with the order.
§ The Committee felt that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints was too high and should be substantially reduced. Also, while deciding whether a disclosure is frivolous, the intention of the complainant should be examined rather than the outcome of the inquiry. The complainant should also have the right to appeal to the High Court.

States and State Legislatures

Rajya Sabha discusses the working of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region

Omir Kumar - March 17, 2022

On March 14, 2022 Rajya Sabha discussed the working of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER). During the discussion, several issues around budgetary allocation, implementation of schemes and connectivity with the North Eastern Region were discussed. The Ministry of DoNER is responsible for matters relating to the planning, execution and monitoring of development schemes and projects in the North Eastern Region. In this blog post, we analyse the 2022-23 budgetary allocations for the Ministry and discuss related issues.

A new scheme named PM-DevINE announced to boost infrastructure and social development

In 2022-23, the Ministry has seen a 5% increase in allocation from the revised estimates of 2021-22. The Ministry has been allocated Rs 2,800 crore which will be used for various development schemes, such as the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme and North East Road Sector Development Scheme. A scheme-wise break-up of the budget allocation for the Ministry is given below in Table 1.

One of the key highlights of the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech was the announcement of a new scheme named the Prime Minister’s Development Initiative for North East (PM-DevINE). It will be implemented through the North East Council (nodal agency for the economic and social development of the North Eastern Region). PM-DevINE will fund infrastructure and social development projects in areas such as road connectivity, health, and agriculture. The scheme will not replace or subsume existing central sector or centrally sponsored schemes. The Scheme will be given an initial allocation of Rs 1,500 crore.

Table 1: Break-up of allocation to the Ministry of DoNER (in Rs crore)

Major Heads	2020-21 Actuals	2021-22 BE	2021-22 RE	2022-23 BE	% change from 2021-22 RE to 2022-23 BE
North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme	446	675	674	1,419	111%
Schemes of North East Council	567	585	585	702	20%
North East Road Sector Development Scheme	416	696	674	496	-26%
Central pool of resources for North East and Sikkim	342	581	581	-	-
Others	270	322	344	241	-30%
Total	1,854	2,658	2,658	2,800	5%

Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; Schemes for North East Council includes Special Development Projects.

Sources: Demand No. 23 of Union Budget Documents 2022-23; PRS.

Allocation towards capital outlay less than demand

The Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2022) noted that the amount allocated at the budget stage in 2022-23 (Rs 660 crore) was 17% less than the demand by the Ministry (Rs 794 crore). Capital expenditure includes capital outlay which leads to the creation of assets such as schools, hospitals, and roads and bridges. The Committee observed that this may severely affect the implementation of several projects and schemes that require capital outlay. It recommended the Ministry to take up this matter with the Finance Ministry and demand additional assistance at the revised stage of the 2022-23 financial year.

Underutilisation of funds over the years

Since 2011-12 (barring 2016-17), the Ministry has not been able to utilise the funds allocated to it at the budgeted stage (See Figure 1). For instance, in 2020-21, fund utilisation in case of the North East Road Sector Development Scheme was 52%, whereas only 34% of funds were utilised under the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (for infrastructure projects relating to water supply, power, connectivity, social infrastructure). Key reasons for underspending highlighted by the Ministry include late receipt of project proposals and non-receipt of utilisation certificates from state governments.

Figure 1: Underutilisation of funds by the Ministry since 2011-12

Note: Revised Estimate has been used as the Actual Expenditure for 2021-22.
Sources: Union Budget Documents (2011-12 to 2022-23); PRS.

Delay in project completion

The Ministry implements several schemes for infrastructural projects such as roads and bridges. The progress of the certain schemes has been inadequate. The Standing Committee (2022) observed that the physical progress of many road sector projects under the North East Road Sector Development Scheme is either at zero or in single digit percent in spite of release of the amount for the project. Similarly, projects under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council (autonomous district council in Assam) and Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (construction of roads, bridges, and construction of schools and water supply projects in the North Eastern Region) have seen inadequate progress.

Need to address declining forest cover

The Standing Committee (2021) has also recommended the Ministry of DoNER to work towards preserving forest cover. The Committee took note of the declining forest cover in the North East India. As per the India State of Forest Report (2021), states showing major loss of forest cover from 2019 to 2021 are: (i) Arunachal Pradesh (loss of 257 sq km of forest cover), (ii) Manipur (249 sq km), (iii) Nagaland (235 sq km), (iv) Mizoram (186 sq km), and (v) Meghalaya (73 sq km). The loss of forest cover may be attributed to shifting cultivation, cutting down of trees, natural calamities, anthropogenic (environmental pollution) pressure, and developmental activities. The Committee recommended that various measures to protect the forest and environment must be given priority and should implemented within the stipulated timeline. It also suggested the Ministry to: (i) carry out regular plantation drives to increase forest cover/density, and (ii) accord priority towards the ultimate goal of preserving and protecting the forests under various centrally sponsored initiatives.

Key issues raised by Members during discussion in Rajya Sabha

The discussion on the working of the Ministry of DoNER took place in Rajya Sabha on March 14, 2022. One of the issues highlighted by members was about the Ministry not having its own line Department. This leads to the Ministry being dependent on the administrative strength of the states for implementation of projects. Another issue highlighted by several members was the lack of connectivity of the region through railways and road networks which hampers the economic growth of region. The DoNER Minister in his response to the House assured the members that the central government is making continuous efforts towards improving connectivity to the North East region through roads, railways, waterways, and telecommunication.

Allocation by Union Ministries to the North East

Union Ministries allocate 10% of their budget allocation for the North East (See Figure 2 for fund allocation and utilisation). The Ministry of DoNER is the nodal Ministry that monitors and keeps track of the allocation done by various Ministries. In 2022-23, Rs 76,040 crore has been allocated by all the Ministries for the North Eastern region. The allocation has increased by 11% from the revised estimate of 2021-22 (Rs 68,440 crore). In 2019-20 and 2021-21 the actual expenditure towards North Eastern areas was lower than budget estimates by 18% and 19% respectively.

Figure 2: Budgetary allocation by all Union Ministries for the North East (amount in Rs crore)

Source: Report No. 239: Demand for Grants (2022-23) of Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Standing Committee on Home Affairs; PRS.

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Standing Committee's recommendations on the Whistleblower's Bill

Rajya Sabha discusses the working of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region

Recent Posts