Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10312
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10312
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804ee9cc1573-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10312,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10423,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10312
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Whistleblower Protection Law&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Under the proposed Bill &amp;mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &amp;mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &amp;mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &amp;mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&amp;rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &amp;mdash; which oversees the working of the country&amp;rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &amp;mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &amp;lsquo;victimisation&amp;rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 10312,
		'title' => 'From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 10423,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 10312,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Whistleblower Protection Law',
	'metaDesc' => '



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...',
	'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 10312,
	'title' => 'From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
&nbsp;
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify">
It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 7 October, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill/856825/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'from-name-to-jail-term-for-false-complaints-centre-mulls-changes-in-whistleblowers-bill-by-maneesh-chhibber-10423',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 10423,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 10312
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber'
$metaKeywords = 'Whistleblower Protection Law'
$metaDesc = '



Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a...'
$disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.</div><div style="text-align: justify">&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify">Under the proposed Bill &mdash; the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 &mdash; which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee &mdash; the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice &mdash; that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can&rsquo;t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat &mdash; which oversees the working of the country&rsquo;s external spy agency RAW &mdash; on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define &lsquo;victimisation&rsquo; in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

From name to jail term for false complaints, Centre mulls changes in whistleblowers Bill by Maneesh Chhibber

Even as the Centre is set to junk most of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Whistleblowers Bill, the government has proposed that the penalty for frivolous or malafide complaints in the proposed Bill would be a jail term up to one year and/or a fine up to Rs 30,000. Also, the Centre says that it would be for the trial court to decide on the quantum of punishment.   Under the proposed Bill — the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 — which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 26 last year, the punishment for malafide disclosure or making false or frivolous complaint is pegged at imprisonment for a maximum of two years and fine which may extend up to Rs 30,000. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is learnt to have initiated inter-ministry consultations about some changes that it intends to make to the Bill. Sources in the DoPT told The Indian Express that the government was of the view that they could not accept in toto the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee — the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice — that ministers, members of the higher judiciary, regulatory authorities, armed forces and intelligence agencies be brought under the ambit of the proposed Bill. The government is also of the opinion that anonymous complaints can’t be allowed to be filed and acted upon at any level since it would defeat the very purpose of the proposed law. A senior DoPT official said since the higher judiciary would be monitored under the proposed Judges Accountability Bill and ministers would be within the ambit of the proposed Lokpal Bill, there was no need to include judges and ministers in the Whistleblowers Bill. The DoPT is also mulling over changing the name of the proposed Bill from Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, to a more simplistic Whistleblowers Protection Bill. The DoPT has also decided to hold wider consultations with the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Secretariat — which oversees the working of the country’s external spy agency RAW — on the recommendation of the Standing Committee to include armed forces and intelligence agencies in the ambit of the proposed whistleblower protection law. It is also not averse to the idea of having a separate authority for the defence forces and intelligence agencies. In its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said there was no logic behind excluding the armed forces since they were under the Right to Information Act too. It had also recommended a foolproof mechanism to protect the identity of the complainant or the whistleblower and also ensure that he was not victimised. For this, the panel wanted the DoPT to define ‘victimisation’ in the Bill. It also wanted that the burden to ensure that the complainant was not subjected to any form of victimisation should be on the organisation competent authority. The DoPT is now learnt to have decided that it could fix a time-frame for the competent authority to decide complaints of victimisation of the whistleblower. The panel had also pointed out that the proposed Bill was silent on the issue of applicability of the proposed law in the states, suggesting that a mechanism be put in place for the proposed law to apply in respect of Centrally funded schemes in states. It also favoured adoption of the Bill by the states. However, the DoPT is of the opinion that the Centre could only recommend to the states to adopt the law or legislate similar laws.