Tag: #RTI

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Antecedents and Evolution of the RTI Act in India
3.	Importance of the Act
4.	Impact of the Right to Information Act, 2005
5.	Cases Related to the Right of Information Act, 2005
6.	Conclusion

Introduction

“A basic tenet of a healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency”, said Peter Fenn. The RTI Act was passed by the Parliament of India on June 15, 2005, and it came into existence on October 12, 2005. Every citizen of India has been bestowed the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The right to information regarding matters of public interest becomes a pivotal point when it comes to forming opinions regarding the governance of the nation. RTI assures the citizens that the rights they possess will allow them to have complete transparency on the part of the government. In modern times, the educated as well as the illiterate classes of society want to be informed regarding the functioning and operation of the administrations in the country. They want to be apprised of how their funds and taxes are being utilized by the government. The citizens look forward to maintaining a system of scrutiny of the administrative campaigns in order to keep a check on swindling and corruptible activities. The paramount objective of the Right to Information Act, of 2005, is to strengthen the functioning of the authorities and make sure that no anti-people policies are carried out, and if any such activities are detected, they can be backed by legitimate grounds. India has evolved over a time period of 82 years from being a country where the citizens had no right to demand information regarding the secretive official Acts passed by the colonial officers to being a nation where the Constitution vests the rights of citizens to have access to every information regarding the working of the state machinery wherein the citizens are allowed to know the power and authority vesting in the officers, the utilization of the funds, as well as “information” involving and pertaining to press releases, records, notices, circulars, contracts, memos, models, public data, and reports released by Ministries, public sector undertakings, etc. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also substantiated at times the need for an act that allows the citizens to have knowledge in order to better judge and inspect the functioning of the government.¹

Antecedents and Evolution of the RTI Act in India

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: It mandated the media to provide anyone and everyone seeking any information in regards to the government, irrespective of the frontiers, with the right medium to receive that information. It cleared the way forward for demanding the right to information in India.
  
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966: It encouraged the idea of freedom of speech and expression, under which people shall be provided with transparency to seek information and proclaim opinions and ideas.
  
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan: In the 1990s, the organization started the movement relating to RTI with regard to increasing lucidity at the village governance level and demanding the minimum wage. Although the movement didn’t turn out to be a successful moment because of a lack of a substantial platform and failed due to having a rural background, it still managed to draw the attention of significant personalities, including the media, lawyers, jurists, dignitaries, academicians, bureaucrats, and legislators, and led to the formation of the National Campaign on the People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)’. A ‘Shourie Committee’ was formed, which was led by the former bureaucrat H.D. Shourie, who was also a consumer rights campaigner. In July 2000, the draft prepared by the Shourie Committee was presented along with certain amendments and alterations and came into existence as the ‘Freedom of Information Bill, 2000’. The parliament passed the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ in 2002, and it’s a precedent of the current Right to Information Act that was passed by the parliament in June 2005 and came into implementation in October 2005.²

Importance of the Act

• Accountability: According to Abraham Lincoln, “Democracy is a rule of the people, for the people, and by the people” (Democracy is a rule of the people, for the people, and by the people). As a result, all authorities operating at various levels are accountable to the nation’s citizens, and each citizen upholds the right to hold the authority in question accountable for its actions. RTI has established a responsibility factor that applies to all government employees, not just those who are elected to serve in that capacity.
  
• Transparency: The Constitution has provided several rights to the government to work freely in an independent and cohesive manner, maintaining certain boundaries regarding their work profile, but RTI has also maintained within its provisions that the government should work on terms that are favourable to the public and nation, and to solidify that fact, it lays down that the public interaction on the part of the government should be absolutely transparent. Citizens possess the right to knowledge about where and how the taxes given by them are being utilized by the government, how the government functions, and what measures are being taken by the government to run the country.
  
• Rule of Law: RTI has also played a role when it has come down to posing certain limitations on the discretionary powers of the authorities. It has been established that the law is the supreme authority, and nobody has the power to cross the supremacy of the Constitution of India. Improvisations in regards to seeking judicial actions in cases of denial of information on inquiry have established a control on the powers of the government and have increased the efficiency rate of work in the government offices as well.
  
• Role of Media: Since the implementation of RTI, the role of the media and press has also received attention. From educating the public about their rights to publishing public opinion polls and assessments of the government and officials, the media has played a significant role in keeping the public informed about how the government operates, everything that is happening in the world, all international deals that are being made with other countries, and government policies.³

Impact of the Right to Information Act, 2005

RTI was implemented in order to improve communication between the government and its constituents. It has established the nation’s official definition of moral leadership. Keeping citizens and authority on an equal footing has caused changes in the orientation of superiority. The citizens now have a voice and a manifesto through which to voice their concerns, limit the authority granted to government officials and authorities, and monitor the services that are being rendered to them. The Act outlines a number of provisions and actions that the public may take to voice complaints and inquiries about any work done by any public office.

Earlier, many people were unable to benefit from the schemes and amenities that the government used to publicize, but due to a lack of familiarity and awareness, they had no access to any of those. However, since the RTI Act, the government has mandated that several sectors correspond and make sure that the general public consumes the benefit of every such service.⁴

RTI has proven to be successful in manoeuvring the corruption rate in the country, which was one of its prime agendas. Now every person sitting in government offices on a chair fears exposure, and it has led to improvisation in their accountability towards the nation. It has led to a significant diminution in bribery. It has made the public officers more service-oriented; people have started taking their jobs seriously because the general public wants an on-paper record of whatever roles the officers are imparted with and whether they are doing their work with scrupulousness.

Every level of administration in our nation, from the local to the federal, has greatly benefited from it. It has highlighted the seriousness of the statement that everyone holding a position of authority is answerable to the public in every way permitted, including giving written testimony upon request or producing any document or report for inspection. It calls for the full disclosure of all records that the public has a right to access.

Cases Related to the Right of Information Act, 2005

In the case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India⁵, the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act had put restrictions on advertising drugs with claims of having magical properties, which was challenged in court, saying that it was restricting their freedom to advertise. The Supreme Court held that advertising is no form of speech but a mode of trade and commerce, and therefore no such ideas can be put forth that might affect the purchasing power of the buyer. The customers have the right to information regarding what they’re purchasing.

In the landmark judgment of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain⁶, Justice K.K. Matthew noted that in a “government of responsibility like ours,” where every officer is bound to be accountable for their actions, there has to be maintained a transparent relationship between the public and the citizens, and the public should be provided with every piece of information that relates to public affairs.

The court in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India⁷ granted constitutional validity to the Right to Information, highlighting the spirit of Article 19(1)(a)  and drawing prominence to the fact how essential openness of government is when it comes to establishing the notion of an ideal democracy, and it drew a parallel significance of the Right to Information with the freedom of speech and expression by noting that the Act follows a correct line of interpretation of the Fundamental Right.

The court again emphasized the contribution of freedom of speech and expression in running the country in a systematic manner while pronouncing its judgment in the case of Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India⁸, where everyone has a right to speak against what they do not consider a righteous attempt at the management of policies.

Conclusion

So far, we’ve understood the magnitude of the word ‘information’ that covers under its ambit every public figure, report and stance of the government that is released at different stages of their governance in which they bring amendments, pass orders and legislation, herald schemes and policies, several documents related to public interest matters, and the connotation of the right to sustain it. The crux of introducing the Act is to provide a platform for the general public to express their opinions regarding what they consider to be the right policy for them and whether or not they’re satisfied with the utilization of the resources for which they are paying a contribution and share to the government. The act was implemented because only when the citizens of a nation are aware of the affairs of the country and when the population is educated regarding matters concerning them can they decide a future for the country and can we progress in the world scenario. The passing of the act was the need of the time so that no one suffers from a lack of government information and everyone has a record of every function of the legislators of our country. It is a transition from the arbitrary system of governance to an unbiased and transparent form of government where everybody has a right to be informed and be given a reason for every course of action being taken.

---

Endnotes:

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005: https://rti.gov.in/RTI%20Act,%202005%20(Amended)-English%20Version.pdf
2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission: https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/rti_masterkey1.pdf
3. Report of the Workshop on The Right to Information and the Media Past Experiences and Future Possibilities: https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/workshops/wksp_rep_on_rtiact05_pune.pdf
4. Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005: https://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guide_2013-issue.pdf
5. Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India, P. (CRL)558/2016
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
7. S.P. Gupta v UOI, AIR 1982 SC 149
8. Article 19 of the Constitution of India
9. Union of Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568, (1997) 1 SCC 301

This article is authored by Vanshika Manish Tiwari, a second-year student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU.

Introduction

In the present time, examples of fraud, corruption, and deception are normal. The need for whistle-blower assurance couldn’t possibly be more significant in a climate where the disguise of realities is advanced, basically in light of the fact that the culprits of violations are safeguarded by those in, influential places. Whistle-blowers have confronted dangers from wrongdoers all over the world, and most state-run administrations have passed regulations to safeguard them. In any case, there is one more illustration of the legitimate regulation requirement that necessities notice.

Safeguarding whistle-blowers in the private area cultivate consistency observing as well as recognizing hostility to corruption infringement. Whistle-blower insurance techniques that are compelling give workers the necessary certainty and feeling of safety in the framework. They feel a sense of urgency to report, however they likewise get to know the framework’s detailing conventions. Subsequently, organizations are safeguarded from bribery and money laundering.¹

Whistleblowing is a term used to portray conduct in which an individual uncovered things that are respected illicit, indecent, or mischief to the general population or inside an association. In India, a whistle-blower can be a current or previous worker who uncovers data in regards to supposed corruption, offense, fraud, or a break of the organization’s strategies and regulations.

Whistleblowing is a term used to portray conduct in which an individual uncovered things that are respected illicit, indecent, or mischief to the general population or inside an association. In India, a whistle-blower can be a current or previous worker who uncovers data in regards to supposed corruption, offense, fraud, or a break of the organization’s strategies and regulations. In previous years, whistle-blowers have utilized the Right to Information Act of 2005 to gather relevant information in regards to any unlawful or indecent lead and make it accessible to the more extensive public. Whistle-blowers are fit for uncovering the organization’s fraudulent activities by utilizing RTI as a weapon. A considerable lot of them are RTI advocates whose intention is to make the framework more straightforward. Such data may be utilized actually to raise public information about government activities and might really be considered for the purpose of review for people.²

Then again, such activists have confronted the outcomes of an absence of insurance, with the quantity of RTI activists killed expanding in the course of the last ten years. Subsequently, the current construction of data chasing and revelation instruments uncovers various challenges. With regards to observing data, many individuals face an assortment of difficulties. One of the important basis for these issues is that, while the RTI is accessible to anybody, whistle-blowers and data locators are denied security. Individuals have threatened or even gone after them on various events in light of the fact that the data they need might make trouble the authorities they are asking about. This could likewise assume a part in the killings of truth-searchers like Rajendra Prasad Singh in Bihar, who uncovered a few dishonest practices in the neighborhood government’s police enrolling and medical care arrangements, and Amit Jethwa, who used RTI to uncover illicit mining in Gujarat’s Gir Forest. This new age of whistle-blowers has been given the last blow. While the Whistle-blowers Protection Act of 2014 states that it is the public authority’s liability to guarantee that whistle-blowers are safeguarded from exploitation and their personalities are covered up, the demonstration still can’t seem to be carried out.

The significance of having hostile to corruption whistle-blower insurance regulation set up has been perceived by instruments targeting fighting corruption on a public and worldwide level. Whistle-blower security provisos have been evoked for UN Conventions Against Corruption, the 2009 OECD Council Recommendation on Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Anti-Bribery Recommendation), the 1998 OECD Recommendation on Improving Ethical Conduct in Public Service, the Council of Europe Civil and Criminal Law Conventions on Corruption, the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, and the United Nations Convention against Corruption Such measures have built up the global legitimate system, making it simpler for legislatures to pass powerful whistle-blower assurance regulation.³

What is exactly “Whistle-Blowing”?

Despite the fact that the word does not appear to indicate what it means, there is no common legal definition of what actually constitutes whistleblowing. It is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as the reporting of illegal, irregular, harmful, or unethical employer practices by employees or former employees. The 2009 OECD Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Anti-Bribery Recommendation) refers to public and private sector employees who report in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities being protected from discriminatory or disciplinary action.
Any individual who discloses any facts concerning offenses established in line with the UNCAC to the competent authorities in good faith and on reasonable grounds is referred to by the UNCAC. Employees who have rational grounds to suspect corruption and who notify their suspicions to responsible authorities or individuals in good faith are attributed to in the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention against Corruption. India’s statutes do not yet include a definition of whistleblowing. National whistleblowing legislation has used similar language as well. PIDA in the United Kingdom, for example, refers to any revelation of information that, in the reasonable opinion of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following: (the provision continues by listing a series of acts, including in relation to the commission of criminal offenses).

The disclosure of wrongdoings related to the workplace; a public interest dimension, such as the reporting of criminal offenses, unethical practices, and so on, rather than a personal grievance; and the reporting of wrongdoings through designated channels and/or to designated persons, are all key characteristics of whistleblowing.⁴

Right to information in India and whistle-blowers

People didn’t have simple admittance to information until the 2005 execution of the Right to Information Act. Individuals couldn’t take part in any of the discussions or censure the dynamic cycle because of an absence of information, regardless of whether they were enduring because of it. The Official Secrets Act of 1923 filled in as a remnant of British imperialism, keeping everything stowed away. Normal citizens had no legitimate right to enquire about government strategies and spending. Citizens who were chosen to control the gatherings accountable for strategy making and adding to the financing of public activities were denied admittance to basic information.

The impact of this culture of mystery was the rich ground for corrupt activities to prosper. Citizens created feelings of feebleness and alienation because of limitations on the free progression of information. In these conditions, the overall population and various nongovernmental associations needed more noteworthy admittance to government-controlled information. The public authority followed the requests by enacting the Right to Information Act of 2015.

The impact of this culture of mystery was the rich ground for corrupt activities to prosper. Citizens created feelings of feebleness and alienation because of limitations on the free progression of information. In these conditions, the overall population and various nongovernmental associations needed more noteworthy admittance to government-controlled information. The public authority consented to the requests by enacting the Right to Information Act of 2015.

Individuals play a basic part in uncovering the corruption that exists inside a corrupt framework. These people accept a major gamble by uncovering corruption in their organizations. Consider the instance of Satyendra Dubey, a legitimate and genuine whistle-blower for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) who had committed his life.

Therefore, the Supreme Court laid out a Central Vigilance Commission to safeguard whistle-blowers. The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, which was instrumental in the entry of the RTI Act, has mentioned that the Whistle-blowers Protection Bill 2011 be passed rapidly.

The Whistle-blowers Protection Act, 2011, is an Act of the Indian Parliament that lays out a design to explore charges of debasement and maltreatment of force by local area laborers, as well as to safeguard anyone who reports affirmed bad behavior in government bodies, activities, or work environments. Distortion, debasement, or mess up are instances of malpractices or bad behaviors. The Act was supported by the Indian Cabinet as a component of a mission to kill corruption in the nation’s organization, and it was enacted by the Lok Sabha on December 27, 2011. Whenever the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on February 21, 2014, and the President gave his authorization on May 9, 2014, it turned into an Act.⁵

Analysis of Whistle-Blowers Protection Act, 2014

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act of 2014 (herein referred to as the “Act”) was enacted to offer a framework for investigating allegations of public servant corruption and abuse of authority, as well as to safeguard people who report wrongdoings. However, seven years have elapsed since the Act’s enactment and no changes have been made. There has been a widespread call to enhance several aspects of the Act in order to make it more whistle-blower-friendly and to provide proper protection to whistle-blowers.⁶

Salient Features of the Act

As per the Act, any individual who files a complaint under the Act about disclosure is referred to as a complainant.
Disclosure means signifies a complaint about an attempt to commit or commit an offense under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act; attempt to commit or commission of a criminal offense by a public servant, made in writing or by electronic mail or electronic mail message, against the public servant, and includes public interest disclosure referred to in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act.

The Act’s Section 11 protects the complainant from being treated unfairly. This was implemented in light of numerous incidents in India where whistle-blowers have been threatened, harassed, and even assassinated for reporting frauds. Satyendra Dubey, the man responsible for exposing the corruption case involving the Golden Quadrilateral project of the National Highways Authority of India, was killed. He joined the Indian Engineering Service (IES) and became Project Director at the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in Koderma, Jharkhand, in 2002. The Indian government, led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, embarked on a massive Golden Quadrilateral Project to connect all major Indian cities by four and six-lane highways, with Satyendra Dubey in charge of a section of NH-2 (GT Road). He discovered that a subcontractor, Larsen, and Toubro, had obtained a contract from the Indian government and passed it on to smaller contract mafias incapable of handling such a large-scale project. He also saw that conventional methods and quality were not followed when constructing the roads. When he did not receive a satisfactory response from the NHAI authorities, he wrote directly to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He appealed for his name to be kept anonymous, but the letter was submitted to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, along with his profile information. He was assassinated in Gaya, Bihar, in 2003, on his way back from a wedding in Varanasi. Three of the suspects were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison by a special CBI court led by Raghvendra Singh.

Shanmugam Manjunath, an Indian Oil Corporation officer, was murdered in Uttar Pradesh after sealing a petrol outlet selling tainted fuel. Mayawati’s government was accused of corruption and theft, and a senior police officer was transferred to a psychiatric facility. When the petrol pump started working again, he led an unannounced raid a month later to inspect the fuel quality. He was shot six times in 2005, and his body was discovered in the backseat of his car. This announcement sparked widespread outrage across the country, as well as in the media. The Trial Court found all eight defendants guilty and condemned them all, with one being sentenced to death and the other seven receiving life sentences. The High Court, on the other hand, overturned the death sentence for one of the defendants and acquitted two others. The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences given to six individuals in 2015.

Section 17 of the Act states that anyone who makes a false, wrong, or misleading disclosure with the knowledge that it is false, incorrect, or misleading is punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of up to thirty thousand rupees.⁷

Laws related to Whistle Blower in other Countries

The primary parts of whistle-blower protection systems all over the planet are interior homegrown regulations, which fill in as models for nations needing to enact such regulation, regardless of whether the regulation isn’t yet significant. They are broad in scope. Whistle-blower protection regulation is remembered for a few homegrown regulations, for example, the Whistle-blower Protection Act (WPA) in Japan, the Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) in South Africa, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act in the United Kingdom (UK PIDA).

A country’s Criminal Code may likewise incorporate whistle-blower protection; for instance, the Canadian Criminal Code prohibits revenge against a worker who uncovered information about wrongdoing. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX Act) modified the United States Federal Criminal Code to force a fine and additionally detainment for reprisal against any whistle-blower who gives precise information to regulation requirement specialists concerning the wrongdoing or likely commission of any Federal offense.

Protections are given by regulation in different countries for explicit offenses. Corruption regulations, contest regulations, bookkeeping regulations, natural protection regulations, work regulations, and corporate and protections regulations are instances of sectoral regulation that give whistle-blower protections in these nations. Explicit people are protected by these resolutions. On the other hand, for the detailing of explicit violations. Korea’s Act on Anti-Corruption and the Establishment and Operation of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC Act) is one such model, as it safeguards any individual who unveils a corruption act to the Commission.

Workers who report wellbeing or security dangers, as well as episodes of lewd behavior, are protected under France’s Code du Travail. Whistle-blowers who submit information to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about an associated infringement with protections regulation that has happened, is happening, or is going to happen are protected under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).

There are decisions that control the way of behaving of community workers at the international level and in a few public sectors. Workers can involve these regulations as a wellspring of whistle-blower protection. Around here, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) of Canada safeguards local officials who report bad behaviors in or relating to the public sector against reprisal. Whistle-blower protections for community workers who uncover breaks (or claimed breaks) of the Code to an approved individual are explicitly referenced in the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

Maybe the private sector has stayed unaffected or unprotected. A few nations have laid out whistle-blower protection for private sector staff in their regulation. The WPA in Japan and the PDA in South Africa both give remarkable security to both public and private sector representatives under this system. Protected disclosures are permitted under the Australian Corporations Act, including for specific criminal offenses. Whistle-blowers in the business sector are likewise covered by the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Whistle-blower Protection Act was passed in 1989 in the United States, and it has since been enhanced by whistle-blower arrangements in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These last two Acts are to a great extent focused on the private sector; however, they are additionally important for the system that shields central government whistle-blowers from reprisal and takes into consideration cures. Just disclosures made by the Canadian government public assistance and some bureaucratic Crown organizations are covered by the Canadian Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act of 2005.

Indeed, even while specific purviews in Australia give protection for the half-breed plot, Australia’s whistle-blower regulation solely applies to the public sector. Both public and private faculty are protected under the Japanese whistleblowing protection act for public interest disclosures. Article 7 explicitly addresses the treatment of national public representatives in the customary assistance, precluding excusal or other unfavorable treatment in view of whistleblowing.

Whistle-blower protection is found at the most significant level of international regulation. The international legitimate structure against corruption expects nations to remember – or consider including – appropriate instruments for their homegrown overall sets of laws to safeguard the people who report any facts about acts of corruption to capable experts with sincere intentions and on sensible grounds. All significant international arrangements managing corruption perceive whistle-blower protection. In international human rights regulation, the protection of whistle-blowers is accentuated, especially when they are the main individual who knows about the detailed circumstance and is additionally in the best situation to inform the business or the more extensive public in general.

For instance, the European Court of Human Rights found in 2008 that a community worker’s excusal for delivering unclassified papers demonstrating political control of the court framework comprised an infringement of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A medical caretaker working for a State-possessed firm was as of late sacked subsequent to presenting a criminal objection against her boss for purposely neglecting to give the top-notch administration guaranteed in its notice, setting patients in danger.

Conclusion

When someone puts society in jeopardy, the public has a right to know about it. Whistleblowing is a courageous act undertaken by those whose souls do not let them remain silent and to have a dim view of others’ wrongdoings. Whistleblowing protects society, fosters increased interest, and strengthens law and order by exposing corruption or any other sort of wrongdoing that causes harm to an individual. This is why their protection is crucial, and at the very least, their safety must be guaranteed.

Whistleblowing is a crucial component of a healthy society, but it’s also important to look at the other side. However, where there are serious implications for global defense, confidentiality and anonymity can be justified, as it would be in the public interest not to publish or disseminate such information. As a result, a delicate balance will be required between the two competing aims of government transparency and public safety. To maintain this balance, the government should approve the Whistle-blowers Act and build a strong regulatory framework to protect whistle-blowers.

References:

1. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue4/Version-7/A019470109.pdf
2. http://www.ijetmas.com/admin/resources/project/paper/f201503031425430684.pdf
3. http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/when-shall-whistleblowers-protection-act-be-implem#.XvYVDCgzZPZ
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4674-protection-of-whistle-blowers-a-socio-legal-perspective.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Whistleblower%20Protection%20Act,safety%20or%20violating%20criminal%20law.
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-information-protection-whistleblowers/
6. https://www.mondaq.com/india/whistleblowing/1118060/whistle-blowers-protection-act-2014-a-cracked-foundation#:~:text=The%20Whistle%20Blowers%20Protection%20Act,been%20made%20to%20the%20Act.
7. http://www.conventuslaw.com/report/india-scraping-the-amorphous-contours-of/

This article is written by Arryan Mohanty, a student of Symbiosis Law School.

After huge success of numerous Quiz Competitions and Interactive Webinars, we hereby glad to inform you all that “Vakalat Works” is organizing their First E- Youth Parliament on the agenda “Review of RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 with special emphasis on PM cares fund.”

Apply latest by: 27th July, 2020

What Vakalat Works is?

“Vakalat Works” is an initiative by law students from different law colleges to bring to you all the information related to law and conducts competitions for you all to test your skills and knowledge. Since it is a community of students we expect to flourish with each passing day.

Eligibility

The competition is open to one & all. So brace yourselves & get ready!!

Important Information

• Date of the Competition – 29^th & 30^th July, 2020 (Sunday)
• Last Date of registration – 27^th July, 2020
• Registration fee- Rs. 200/- 

Cash Prize worth Rs 2000/-

Agenda

“Review of RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 with special emphasis on PM cares fund.”

Note:  Digital Certificates will be issued to all the participants of the competition.

Payment related information 

Steps to follow:

1. Pay your Competition fees on Paytm/Google Pay/Phone pe at the given details

2. Take a screenshot of that transaction.

3. Click on the registration link given below in this page

4. Upload the screenshot of the payment transaction there along with other necessary details of yours that are asked for.

5. “Submit” the Form and Prepare.

Payment mode and Details:

• Google Pay/ Paytm/ Phone Pe :  7080468523 (Animesh Shukla)

Registration link

https://forms.gle/42yfxDnAEdgwLf2v7

For any query, Contact us on:

Email id – vakalatworks@gmail.com

Animesh Shukla – 7080468523 (Only Whatsapp)

Hardik Mishra – 8448527844 (Only Whatsapp)

Social Accounts

Facebook : vakalatworks

Instagram: vakalatworks