Sukhjeevan Sharma
INVC,
Panchkula,
1985 batch IAS officer Sanjeev Kumar claimed that he was a whistleblower. After his conviction, it raises a big question mark over whom to call a whistleblower, an approver and whether we are anywhere near a Whistleblower’s Protection Act.The facts which have come to light are that once a person is complicit in an act of crime cannot claim to be a Whistleblower. In the JBT teacher’s scam, the court found that Sanjeev Kumar himself was hands in glove with Om Prakash Chautala in the entire conspiracy which was well planned. It was much later that he blew the whistle. However, he still misled the court in various occasions vis-à-vis documents presented in the court of law.Sanjeev Kumar kept calling himself a whistleblower when no one called him one. And two — he couldn’t have claimed to having been an approver till the time the court decided to call him one.But who can be called a whostleblower: By its definition a whistleblower is a man, who brings to the public domain an information which informs one about dishonesty committed in any form, right from carrying fraud, violation of rule of law, etc. Also a person, who later on says, that unintentional he became part of such a practice too can be termed one. But only after having sufficiently proved the incidental participation and not by virtue of ones will.There are many who say that he was more like an approver than a whistleblower. However, legal experts say even if one wants to turn into an approver, it is not a matter of right but a matter of being allowed to be called so by the court of law. However, Sanjeev Kumar cannot be even called an approver. What he did was basically aimed at settling scores with Chautala’s and in doing that was caught in his own web. owever, the special CBI Judge Vinod Kumar while sentencing Kumar observed that had he spoken the truth, the court would have treated him differently than the other convicts. He also said that sentencing Kumar troubled him. owever, in his own words Law would welcome a whistle blowers but only if such a person is a victim of circumstances. If the whistle blower has a minor role in the commission of the offence the courts should come forward to his rescue and in appropriate cases should not hesitate to make him an ‘approver’. Who is this man who calls himself a whistleblower? Sanjeev Kumar is a 1989 batch IAS officer, who served as Director, Primary Education at the time the JBT scam took place. He had filed a writ in the Supreme Court, alleging the state government led by Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala had resorted to corrupt practices while recruiting 3,206 junior basic trained (JBT) teachers. Kumar had then accused Chautala of forcing him to change the original list of selected candidates for the appointment of over 2,000 teachers. Chautala, made a counter charge and accused Kumar of himself indulging in ‘corrupt’ practices. The case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Throughout the trial, Sanjeev Kumar kept reiterating that he was the whistleblower in the case even as he was being tried for his being party to the entire gamut of events as a result of which the JBT scam happened. Now, with the Chautala duo of father and son he is languishing in the jail. Even as after this judgement, whistleblowing has to many uninformed people turned into a grey area one would not like to tread, the common man would want the Whistleblower’s Act in place sooner than later.
