- (1.) None appears on behalf of the intervenor. The application for intervention is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court, with a number of prayers. However, during the course of hearing, the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners was, that the only surviving prayer was the following: d) Direct the Government to issue suitable administrative instructions to ensure that there is an independent authority to receive complaints of whistle blowers and which has the authority to protect such whistle blowers from victimisation and physical violence, in the absence of legislation to this effect.
(3.) In furtherance of the afore stated prayer, and the consequential directions issued by this Court, an administrative notification was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, of the Government of India, on 21.04.2004. The same came to be implemented for protection of whistle blowers. It is not a matter of dispute, that various amendments, by way of corrigenda, were carried out with reference to the original notification dated 21.04.2004. Illustratively, one of such corrigenda was notified on 29.04.2004. The same is available, on the record of this case. Despite the afore stated administrative notification(s), this Court continued to monitor the process of finalising protection of whistle blowers, and in this behalf, three orders of this Court are relevant. The first order was issued on 30.07.2013, and is being extracted hereunder: Heard. By our order dated 29th September, 2006 we had directed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to forward to this Court, in a sealed cover, a report as to the progress made after the issue of Notification dated 21st April, 2004 by the Government of India. We are told that the CVC has in compliance with the said direction submitted a report in the year 2006. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that nearly seven years having elapsed since the submission of the said report, it is time for the CVC to submit a further report indicating the number of complaints received as also the action taken on the same. He urged that in most of the complaints the CVC simply relies upon the report/reply received from the Chief Vigilance Officer of the concerned Ministry/Department regarding which the complaints are filed and the complaint cases closed. He further submits that no independent investigations are ordered by the CVC although the allegations levelled in several cases are of very serious nature and call for such investigations. He, therefore, urged that the report which the CVC may be asked to submit should also include information as to the number of cases in which the CVC has looked into the nature of the allegations made by the whistle-blowers and directed independent investigation into the same. In addition, CVC could also indicate in its report whether any protection was provided to the whistle-blowers against administrative and/or other harassments. He urged that so long as these particulars are not available it will be difficult to say whether Notification dated 21st April, 2004 has really served the purpose for which it was issued by the Government of India. It is further pointed out by Mr. Bhushan that some of the allegations that late Mr. S.K. Dubey had made in his letter dated 11th November, 2002 addressed to the Prime Minister and the report submitted by him to the Chief Vigilance Officer through letter dated 2nd May, 2003 remain to be investigated. He drew our attention to Annexure PA1 (annexed to the paper book of the writ petition) in which such allegations have been identified as also the officers/agencies against which the same have been made. He submitted that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has not, despite lapse of considerable times since the making of the said complaint, conducted any investigation into these aspects. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for CBI, submits that the CBI would not have any difficulty in responding to the submission made by Mr. Bhushan by reference to Annexure PA1 and the findings/actions, if any, taken by the CBI in regard thereto. In the circumstances, therefore, we direct that the Central Vigilance Commission shall submit a further report indicating the progress made since the submission of the last report by it regarding the number of complaints received and the action taken on the same. The report shall, inter alia, indicate particulars of cases in which the CVC has directed independent investigation and/or granted protection to whistle-blowers against administrative and other harassments. CBI shall also, as submitted by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, respond to the allegations as articulated in Annexure PA1 by the writ petitioner. Supplementary affidavits, if any, be filed by the CBI in this regard. Permission to file further/additional affidavits, if any, is also granted to the parties. Post after three months. The needful be done in the meantime. (emphasis is ours) The second motion bench order was passed on 27.08.2014. The said order is reproduced below: The CBI has pursuant to our order dated 30.07.2013 filed its counter affidavit, Central Vigilance Commission has also submitted a report in terms of the above order. A copy of the report shall be furnished to learned counsel for the parties who may file their response to the same, if so advised, within six months. Post after six weeks. Finally, the third order, which is relevant to the express prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition, was issued on 12.02.2015. The said order is extracted hereunder: The Central Vigilance Commission has, pursuant to our orders dated 30.07.2013 and 27.08.2014, submitted a further report giving details of the complaints received by it as also their disposal. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel submits that based on the reports, so submitted, he proposes to make certain suggestions in writing as to what the Central Vigilance Commission ought to do in order to make its working more credible and transparent. He also seeks some time to examine as to what are the systematic efficacies prevalent in India vis-a-vis similar institutions in the world. He may do the needful within four weeks with advance copy to Mr. Radhkrishnan, learned senior counsel, who will have three weeks thereafter to respond. List after seven weeks. From the orders extracted above, it is apparent, that this Court personally monitored the process and progress of providing protection to whistle blowers. During the course of the passing of the afore stated orders, and consequent thereupon, suggestions submitted by the petitioners were considered. Responses were obtained from the Central Vigilance Commission, whereupon, further contentions were also allowed to be made by the petitioners.;