In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg came across top-secret US defence documents on the Vietnam war. These Pentagon papers, as they came to be known, chronicled the lies told to justify the Vietnam war. Ellsberg made these documents public, turning the tide of US public opinion firmly against the war. For his services, he was prosecuted, threatened with violence, and his phone bugged. Though later acquitted, Ellsberg’s tribulations first highlighted the need for protecting whistle-blowers. Thirty-eight years later, the death of a Bihar PWD engineer only reiterates this need. Yogendra Pandey had upset powerful interests by cancelling a road contract for non-performance. In response he was beaten; the arrested culprit soon released on bail. Pandey then asked for police security, a request that was trapped in red tape before permission was finally granted a full year later. Even then, no cops were deployed around Pandey; when he died, he died alone. Preliminary indications suggest that Pandey joins the ranks of Satyendra Dubey and Manjunath Shanmugam — whistle-blowers whom the state failed to protect.

Pandey’s killing also exposes a major flaw in the proposed whistle-blower protection laws that the government has floated. These proposals — like the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Bill 2002 and the Law Commission’s 179th report — focus on ways to help whistle-blowers circumvent confidentiality agreements. This is necessary — often whistle-blowers are gagged by confidentiality contracts (in the private sector) or secrecy laws (in the public sector) that prevent them from revealing chicanery. These proposals also set up in-house disclosure mechanisms. But these proposals do not include physical protection for whistleblowers like Pandey against the inevitable retribution that his courage invited. A new law, with this addition, should be passed immediately.

... contd.