Chapter IV

Comparative and International Legal Framework

4.1Introduction to Comparative Framework

In the contemporary globalised economy, legal systems are increasingly influenced by

international standards, cross-border commercial practices, and comparative legal
developments. The regulation of whistleblowing and trade secret protection is no
longer confined within national boundaries, as corporations operate across
jurisdictions and misconduct often has transnational implications. In such a context, a
comparative legal analysis becomes essential to understand how different countries
address the balance between corporate confidentiality and public interest disclosures.

The importance of comparison lies in identifying both strengths and deficiencies

within a domestic legal framework. India’s approach to whistleblowing and trade
secret protection, as discussed in the previous chapter, remains fragmented and
underdeveloped, particularly in the absence of comprehensive legislation and clear
judicial standards. By examining more evolved legal systems such as those of the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, it becomes possible to
evaluate alternative models that offer stronger protection to whistleblowers while
maintaining safeguards for confidential business information.

Globalisation has further intensified the need for harmonised regulatory approaches.
Multinational corporations function across multiple jurisdictions, and inconsistent
legal standards may lead to regulatory arbitrage, where entities exploit weaker legal
systems to avoid accountability. Additionally, the rise of digital economies, data-
driven businesses, and cross-border information flows has increased the complexity of
protecting trade secrets while ensuring transparency. In such an environment,
effective whistleblower protection mechanisms are crucial for detecting corporate
fraud, financial misconduct, and regulatory violations that may otherwise remain
concealed.

Another important aspect of comparative analysis is the role of international

organisations and best practices. Institutions such as the OECD and WIPO have
developed guiding principles that encourage countries to adopt robust whistleblower

51
protection systems and clear frameworks for safeguarding confidential information.

52
These global standards highlight the need to strike a balance between encouraging
disclosures in the public interest and preventing misuse of sensitive commercial data.

Further, comparative study also assists in understanding different legal approaches to

key issues such as:

1. the scope of whistleblower protection (public vs private sector)

2. availability of immunity for disclosure of confidential information

3. enforcement mechanisms and institutional support

4. judicial interpretation and balancing of competing interests

By analysing these aspects, it becomes possible to identify gaps in the Indian legal
framework and assess whether existing laws adequately address modern corporate
realities.

Therefore, a comparative framework not only provides analytical insight into how
different jurisdictions resolve the conflict between whistleblowing and confidentiality
but also serves as a foundation for suggesting reforms within the Indian legal system.
By drawing lessons from established legal regimes, this chapter aims to highlight
mechanisms that can help India achieve a more balanced, effective, and forward-
looking approach in reconciling public interest with corporate confidentiality.

4.2 United States

4.2.1 Whistleblower Protection Laws in the United States

The United States has developed one of the most comprehensive and structured legal
frameworks for whistleblower protection, particularly in the corporate and financial
sectors. This framework is largely built upon two major legislations: the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act, 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, 2010. These statutes were enacted in response to large-scale corporate scandals
and financial crises, and they collectively aim to promote transparency,
accountability, and early detection of corporate misconduct. Unlike India, the U.S.
system not only protects whistleblowers but actively encourages disclosures through
incentives and strong enforcement mechanisms.

53
 (A) Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002 (SOX) was enacted following major corporate
scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, which exposed serious weaknesses in
corporate governance and financial reporting systems. A key feature of the Act is its
focus on protecting employees who report corporate fraud and violations of securities
laws.

Section 806 of the Act provides explicit protection to employees of publicly traded
companies who report misconduct. It prohibits employers from retaliating against
whistleblowers through actions such as dismissal, demotion, suspension, harassment,
or discrimination.88

The scope of protection under SOX is significant because it covers disclosures made
not only to regulatory authorities but also internally within the organization.
Employees may report concerns to supervisors, audit committees, or federal agencies,
and such disclosures are protected as long as the employee reasonably believes that a
violation has occurred.89

Another important feature of SOX is the requirement for companies to establish

internal whistleblower mechanisms. Section 301 mandates audit committees to create
procedures for receiving and handling complaints related to accounting and auditing
issues, including anonymous reporting channels.

In terms of remedies, the Act provides:

 reinstatement of employment

 back pay with interest

 compensation for damages

These remedies aim to restore the position of the whistleblower and deter employers
from engaging in retaliatory conduct.

However, despite these protections, SOX has been criticised for certain limitations.
For instance, complaints must initially be filed with the Department of Labor,
and

88
Sarbanes–Oxley Act [Link]
54
%E2%80%93Oxley_Act?utm_source=.com 89 Whistleblowers, Dodd-Frank and
Sarbanes-Oxley [Link]
[Link]/2010/08/whistleblowers-dodd-frank-and-sarbanes-oxley/?utm_source=.com

55
procedural requirements may delay relief. These limitations later led to the
introduction of stronger provisions under the Dodd-Frank Act.90

(B) Dodd-Frank Act, 2010

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis, significantly
strengthened whistleblower protection in the United States. It introduced a more
robust and incentive-based approach to encourage individuals to report violations of
securities laws.

One of the most notable features of the Act is the establishment of the SEC
Whistleblower Program, which allows individuals to report violations directly to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This represents a major shift from
traditional internal reporting systems, as it enables whistleblowers to bypass corporate
structures and approach regulators directly.

A key innovation under the Dodd-Frank Act is the provision of financial rewards.
Whistleblowers are entitled to receive between 10% and 30% of the monetary
sanctions collected by the SEC in cases where their information leads to successful
enforcement actions exceeding $1 million.

This reward mechanism serves as a powerful incentive, addressing one of the biggest
barriers to whistleblowing — the personal and professional risks involved. By
offering financial compensation, the law recognises the contribution of
whistleblowers in uncovering complex financial fraud.

In addition to incentives, the Act provides strong anti-retaliation protections.

Employers are prohibited from discharging, demoting, harassing, or discriminating
against employees who report violations. Whistleblowers are also given the right to
file claims directly in federal courts, which simplifies the enforcement process and
enhances access to remedies.

90
Idbi 89

56
 The Act also allows for:

 anonymity of whistleblowers

 direct reporting to regulators

 broader scope beyond public companies

These features make the Dodd-Frank framework significantly stronger than earlier
laws and more effective in encouraging disclosures.91

Analytical Insight

The U.S. model represents a proactive approach to whistleblower protection. It does

not merely prevent retaliation but actively promotes disclosure through:

 financial incentives

 independent reporting channels

 strong enforcement mechanisms

This approach contrasts sharply with the Indian framework, which remains largely
reactive and limited in scope. The inclusion of rewards and direct regulatory access
ensures that whistleblowers are not dependent solely on internal corporate systems,
which may be biased or ineffective.

Whistleblower Award Process92

91
Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower Provisions Explained
[Link]
[Link]?utm_source=.com
92
[Link]

60
4.2.2 Trade Secret Protection in the United States Defend Trade
Secrets Act, 2016 (DTSA)

The protection of trade secrets in the United States underwent a significant

transformation with the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016 (DTSA).
Prior to this legislation, trade secrets were primarily governed by state laws, most
notably the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), which had been adopted by a
majority of states with certain variations. While the UTSA provided a general
framework for the protection of confidential business information, the absence of a
uniform federal mechanism often resulted in inconsistencies and jurisdictional
challenges. The DTSA addressed these concerns by introducing a federal cause of
action for trade secret misappropriation, thereby strengthening the overall legal
regime and ensuring greater uniformity across the United States93.

At its core, the DTSA defines a trade secret broadly to include all forms of financial,
business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, provided that
such information derives independent economic value from not being generally
known and is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy94. This definition
aligns closely with international standards, particularly those under the TRIPS
Agreement, and reflects the growing importance of intangible assets in the modern
economy.

One of the most important features of the DTSA is the creation of a federal cause of
action, which allows trade secret owners to file civil suits directly in federal courts.
This marked a significant departure from the earlier reliance on state courts under the
UTSA. The availability of a federal forum offers several advantages, including
procedural consistency, broader jurisdictional reach, and enhanced enforcement
capabilities, particularly in cases involving interstate or international
misappropriation. As a result, businesses operating across multiple states benefit from
a more predictable and cohesive legal framework.

In addition to establishing federal jurisdiction, the DTSA ensures uniform protection

across states, without pre-empting existing state laws. This means that trade secret
owners can pursue remedies under both federal and state laws simultaneously, thereby
strengthening their legal position. The coexistence of federal and state remedies
creates

61
93
Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016, 18 U.S.C. § 1836.
94
18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)

62
a layered system of protection, allowing for flexibility while maintaining a baseline
level of uniformity.

Another defining aspect of the DTSA is its provision of strong civil remedies, which
are designed to deter misappropriation and compensate victims effectively95. The Act
provides for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and, in exceptional cases, the
extraordinary remedy of civil seizure.

Firstly, the DTSA allows courts to grant injunctions to prevent actual or threatened
misappropriation of trade secrets. Injunctive relief plays a crucial role in protecting
confidential information, as it enables courts to restrain individuals or entities from
using or disclosing trade secrets. However, the Act imposes certain limitations to
ensure fairness, particularly in employment-related cases. For instance, injunctions
cannot be used to prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship
solely on the basis of the information they possess, thereby balancing the interests of
employers and employees.

Secondly, the Act provides for monetary damages, which may include compensation
for actual losses suffered by the trade secret owner as well as unjust enrichment
obtained by the wrongdoer³. In cases where damages are difficult to quantify, courts
may award a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized use of trade secrets.
Furthermore, in instances of willful and malicious misappropriation, the DTSA
permits the award of exemplary damages of up to two times the amount of actual
damages, along with attorney’s fees. These provisions significantly enhance the
deterrent effect of the law.

Perhaps the most distinctive and powerful feature of the DTSA is the provision for
civil seizure, which allows courts to order the seizure of property necessary to prevent
the dissemination of trade secrets96. This remedy is available only in extraordinary
circumstances and is subject to strict procedural safeguards. The applicant must
demonstrate that immediate and irreparable harm will occur if the seizure is not
ordered, and that other forms of relief would be inadequate. The court must also
ensure that the seizure is narrowly tailored and does not disrupt legitimate business
activities. Despite these safeguards, the availability of civil seizure represents a
significant expansion of

63
95
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3).
96
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2).

64
enforcement powers and underscores the seriousness with which trade secret
misappropriation is treated in the United States.

An important and unique feature of the DTSA, particularly relevant to the present
study, is the inclusion of whistleblower immunity provisions. The Act explicitly
provides that individuals shall not be held liable under trade secret laws for disclosing
confidential information in confidence to a government official or an attorney for the
purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law. Additionally,
disclosures made in court filings are protected if they are made under seal97. This
provision represents a deliberate attempt to balance the protection of trade secrets
with the need to encourage whistleblowing in the public interest.

The inclusion of whistleblower immunity marks a significant departure from

traditional trade secret protection regimes, which often prioritise confidentiality over
transparency. By recognising the legitimacy of public interest disclosures, the DTSA
establishes a nuanced legal framework that accommodates both corporate interests
and societal concerns. This feature is particularly relevant when compared to the
Indian legal system, where no such statutory immunity exists, leading to uncertainty
and risk for whistleblowers.

In conclusion, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016 has significantly enhanced the
protection of trade secrets in the United States by introducing a federal cause of
action, ensuring uniformity, and providing strong civil remedies. At the same time, its
inclusion of whistleblower immunity provisions reflects a progressive approach to
balancing corporate confidentiality with public interest disclosures. This dual focus
makes the
U.S. framework particularly relevant for comparative analysis and offers valuable
insights for jurisdictions such as India, where trade secret protection and
whistleblower laws remain underdeveloped and fragmented.

65
97
18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)

66
4.2.3 Remedies under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016 provides a comprehensive set of civil remedies
to protect trade secret owners and prevent misuse of confidential information. These
remedies are designed not only to compensate the aggrieved party but also to deter
wrongful conduct.

1. Injunction

The Act empowers courts to grant injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened
misappropriation of trade secrets98. An injunction may restrain a person from using,
disclosing, or further disseminating confidential information. However, the law
imposes certain limitations to ensure fairness, particularly in employment-related
situations. Courts cannot prevent an individual from seeking employment solely based
on their knowledge of trade secrets, thereby maintaining a balance between protecting
business interests and ensuring employee mobility.

2. Damages

The DTSA also provides for monetary compensation in cases of trade secret
misappropriation99. Damages may include:

1. actual loss suffered by the owner

2. unjust enrichment gained by the wrongdoer

3. reasonable royalty (where loss cannot be precisely calculated)

In cases involving willful and malicious misappropriation, courts may award

exemplary damages, which can be up to two times the amount of actual damages.
Additionally, reasonable attorney’s fees may also be granted. This enhances the
deterrent effect of the law.

3. Civil Seizure of Property

One of the most distinctive features of the DTSA is the provision for civil seizure,
which allows courts to order the seizure of property necessary to prevent the
dissemination of trade secrets100. This remedy is considered extraordinary and is
granted only in exceptional circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate that

98
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)
99
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B).
100
18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2).

67
immediate and irreparable harm is likely to occur and that other remedies would be
inadequate. Courts are required to ensure that such orders are narrowly tailored to
avoid unnecessary disruption of legitimate business activities.

4.3.1 Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), 1998

The United Kingdom has developed a comprehensive and relatively balanced legal
framework for whistleblower protection through the Public Interest Disclosure Act,
1998 (PIDA). This legislation was enacted to encourage individuals to report
wrongdoing within organisations while ensuring that they are protected from
retaliation. Unlike the Indian framework, which is largely limited to the public sector,
PIDA applies to both public and private sector employees, thereby offering broader
protection and addressing corporate misconduct more effectively.

One of the key features of PIDA is its wide scope of application. The Act covers
employees, workers, trainees, agency staff, and even certain self-employed
individuals, provided they fall within the statutory definition of “workers.”101This
inclusive approach ensures that a large segment of the workforce is protected when
making disclosures in the public interest. It recognises that wrongdoing can occur in
any organisational setting, whether governmental or corporate, and therefore extends
protection beyond traditional employment relationships.

Another important aspect of the Act is its strong emphasis on protection against
victimisation. Under PIDA, any form of retaliation against a whistleblower is
unlawful. This includes dismissal, demotion, harassment, discrimination, or any
adverse treatment arising from the disclosure102. In cases where an employee is
dismissed for making a protected disclosure, such dismissal is automatically
considered unfair under UK employment law. The whistleblower is entitled to
remedies such as reinstatement, compensation, and damages. This robust protection
mechanism ensures that individuals are not discouraged from reporting wrongdoing
due to fear of professional consequences.

101
Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 (UK), § 43K.
102
Employment Rights Act, 1996 (as amended by PIDA), §§ 47B, 103A.

68
PIDA also establishes a structured system for internal and external disclosures,
thereby providing flexibility to whistleblowers. The Act encourages individuals to
first report concerns internally within the organisation, such as to supervisors or
designated compliance authorities. However, where internal mechanisms are
ineffective, compromised, or unsafe, the law permits disclosures to external bodies,
including regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, and, in certain
circumstances, even the media.103This multi-channel approach ensures that
whistleblowers are not restricted to internal systems that may be influenced by the
very individuals involved in wrongdoing.

A central concept underlying PIDA is that disclosures must be made in good faith and
in the public interest. This requirement acts as a safeguard against misuse of the law
while simultaneously ensuring that genuine disclosures aimed at protecting public
welfare are encouraged. It also creates an inherent balance between corporate
confidentiality and transparency, as only those disclosures that serve a legitimate
public purpose are protected.

Overall, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 represents a progressive approach to
whistleblower protection by combining wide applicability, strong safeguards against
retaliation, and flexible reporting mechanisms. It offers a more comprehensive model
compared to the Indian legal framework, particularly in its inclusion of private sector
employees and its recognition of external disclosures. This makes the UK framework
highly relevant for comparative analysis and provides valuable insights for
developing a more balanced legal regime in India.

4.3.2 Public Interest Test

A central and distinguishing feature of the United Kingdom’s whistleblower

protection framework under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 (PIDA) is the
requirement that disclosures must be made in the “public interest.” This requirement
plays a crucial role in balancing the competing interests of corporate confidentiality
and the need to expose wrongdoing. Unlike systems that focus solely on protecting
confidential information, the UK framework explicitly recognises that certain
disclosures, even if

103
UK Government, Whistleblowing: List of Prescribed Persons and Bodies, available at:
69
[Link]

61
0
they involve sensitive or proprietary information, may be justified if they serve a
broader societal purpose.

The concept of “public interest” was formally introduced into the legislation through
amendments to the Employment Rights Act, 1996. Under this framework, a disclosure
qualifies for protection only if the worker has a reasonable belief that the information
disclosed is in the public interest and tends to show wrongdoing such as criminal
offences, breach of legal obligations, miscarriage of justice, threats to health and
safety, environmental damage, or concealment of any such act104. This requirement
ensures that whistleblowing is not misused for personal grievances or private disputes,
but is instead directed towards issues that affect society at large.

The importance of the public interest test was clarified in the landmark case of
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal held
that a disclosure can be considered in the public interest even if it primarily affects a
specific group of employees, provided that the impact is sufficiently serious and not
purely personal105. This case significantly broadened the interpretation of “public
interest” and confirmed that the concept should be applied flexibly rather than
narrowly.

From a legal perspective, the public interest test serves as a filtering mechanism. It
distinguishes between:

 genuine whistleblowing (protected)

 personal or contractual disputes (not protected)

At the same time, it acts as a balancing tool between confidentiality and transparency.
Employers often rely on confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure agreements to
protect trade secrets and sensitive information. However, under the PIDA framework,
such contractual obligations cannot override disclosures that meet the public interest
requirement. This ensures that organisations cannot use confidentiality agreements as
a shield to conceal illegal or unethical activities.

Another important aspect of the public interest test is the requirement of reasonable
belief. The whistleblower is not required to prove that wrongdoing has actually
occurred; it is sufficient that they reasonably believe the information to be true and in

104
Employment Rights Act, 1996 (UK), § 43B (as amended by PIDA, 1998).
61
1
105
Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2017] EWCA Civ 979.

61
2
the public interest at the time of disclosure106. This lowers the burden on
whistleblowers and encourages reporting by reducing the risk of legal consequences
for honest mistakes.

In practical terms, the public interest test enhances the effectiveness of whistleblower
protection in the United Kingdom by:

 promoting responsible disclosures

 preventing misuse of the law

 ensuring that confidentiality does not override accountability

This approach represents a more balanced and structured model compared to the
Indian legal framework, where no clear statutory test exists to determine when
disclosure of confidential information is justified. The absence of such a test in India
contributes to legal uncertainty and discourages whistleblowing, particularly in cases
involving trade secrets.

In conclusion, the public interest test under the UK framework is a critical legal
mechanism that successfully reconciles the tension between corporate confidentiality
and whistleblowing. By protecting disclosures that serve a broader societal purpose
while filtering out personal grievances, it provides a nuanced and effective model that
India could adopt to address similar legal challenges.

4.3.3 Protection Against Retaliation

An essential feature of the United Kingdom’s whistleblower protection regime under

the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 (PIDA) is its strong and well-defined
safeguards against retaliation. The effectiveness of any whistleblowing framework
largely depends on the extent to which individuals are protected after making
disclosures, and the UK model is widely regarded as robust in this regard. By
providing clear statutory remedies and shifting certain burdens onto employers, the
law ensures that whistleblowers are not penalised for acting in the public interest.

Under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (as amended by PIDA), any worker who
makes a protected disclosure is shielded from detrimental treatment by their
employer.107 The term “detriment” is interpreted broadly and includes actions such
as

106
UK Government Guidance on Whistleblowing, available at: [Link]
61
3
107
Employment Rights Act, 1996 (UK), § 47B.

61
4
suspension, demotion, denial of promotion, harassment, reduction in responsibilities,
or any other conduct that places the employee at a disadvantage. This expansive
definition ensures that protection is not limited to extreme cases like dismissal but
extends to subtler forms of workplace retaliation.

One of the most significant protections provided under UK law is that dismissal on
the grounds of whistleblowing is automatically deemed unfair.108 Unlike ordinary
unfair dismissal claims, there is no requirement for a minimum period of employment.
This means that even employees with a short duration of service are entitled to
protection if they are dismissed for making a protected disclosure. This provision
significantly strengthens the position of whistleblowers and reduces the risk
associated with reporting wrongdoing.

In terms of remedies, the law provides a range of options to ensure effective redress.
A whistleblower who has suffered retaliation may bring a claim before an
Employment Tribunal and seek:

 reinstatement to their previous position

 re-engagement in a comparable role

 compensation for financial loss and injury to feelings

Importantly, there is no statutory cap on compensation in whistleblowing cases, which

reflects the seriousness with which such retaliation is treated.109 This acts as a strong
deterrent against employers engaging in retaliatory conduct.

Judicial interpretation has further strengthened these protections. In Fecitt v NHS

Manchester, the Court of Appeal clarified that employers may be held liable if they
fail to take reasonable steps to prevent victimisation of whistleblowers by co-
workers.110 This case expanded the scope of employer responsibility and emphasised
that protection extends beyond direct managerial actions to include workplace
environment and culture.

Another important aspect of the UK framework is the burden of proof. Once a

whistleblower establishes that they have made a protected disclosure and suffered

108
Employment Rights Act, 1996 (UK), § 103A.
109
UK Government, Whistleblowing: Guidance for Employers and Workers, available at:
[Link]
110
Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] EWCA Civ 471.

61
5
detriment, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the treatment was not
linked to the disclosure. This significantly improves the chances of success for
whistleblowers and addresses the evidentiary challenges often associated with proving
retaliation.

From a practical perspective, these provisions create a legal environment where

employees can report wrongdoing with a greater degree of confidence. The
combination of broad protection, strong remedies, and supportive judicial
interpretation ensures that whistleblowing is not merely encouraged in theory but is
effectively safeguarded in practice.

In comparison to India, the UK framework is far more developed in addressing

retaliation. While Indian law provides limited and largely ineffective safeguards, the
UK model establishes clear legal consequences for employers who retaliate against
whistleblowers. This highlights a critical gap in the Indian legal system, where fear of
retaliation continues to be a major deterrent to disclosures.

In conclusion, the protection against retaliation under the UK legal framework

represents a cornerstone of effective whistleblower protection. By ensuring that
individuals are not subjected to adverse consequences for reporting wrongdoing, the
law reinforces transparency, accountability, and ethical governance. This aspect of the
UK model provides valuable guidance for jurisdictions such as India, where stronger
enforcement mechanisms and clearer legal protections are urgently required.

4.3.4 Corporate Confidentiality Rules and Their Limitations

In the United Kingdom, corporate confidentiality is recognised as an essential

component of commercial practice, particularly in relation to trade secrets, proprietary
information, and sensitive business data. Employers routinely rely on contractual
mechanisms such as non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), confidentiality clauses in
employment contracts, and equitable doctrines like breach of confidence to safeguard
such information. However, unlike traditional legal systems that give absolute priority
to confidentiality, the UK framework introduces important limitations to ensure that
secrecy is not misused to conceal wrongdoing.

Under common law principles, confidential information is protected where it

possesses the necessary quality of confidence, is communicated in circumstances

70
importing an

70
obligation of confidence, and is used or disclosed without authorisation.111 These
principles have been consistently upheld by courts to prevent misuse of trade secrets
and commercially valuable information. In addition, contractual obligations reinforce
these protections by legally binding employees and third parties to maintain
confidentiality during and, in some cases, after the period of employment.

Despite this strong protection, UK law clearly recognises that confidentiality cannot
be absolute. A significant limitation arises from the principle of public interest, which
operates as an exception to confidentiality obligations. Where disclosure of
confidential information is necessary to reveal wrongdoing, illegality, or matters
affecting public welfare, the law may permit such disclosure even if it breaches
contractual obligations. This principle is central to the functioning of the Public
Interest Disclosure Act, 1998, which ensures that whistleblowers are protected when
disclosing information in the public interest.

The courts have reinforced this position in several cases. In Attorney General v
Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2), the House of Lords held that confidentiality cannot
be enforced where the information has entered the public domain or where its
disclosure serves a legitimate public interest112. This case established that the
protection of confidential information must be balanced against broader societal
concerns, particularly freedom of expression and accountability.

Similarly, in Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans, the Court of Appeal allowed disclosure
of confidential documents on the grounds that they revealed serious defects in
breathalyser devices used in criminal prosecutions.113 The court emphasised that
public interest in exposing potential injustice outweighed the employer’s claim to
confidentiality. This case is particularly important as it demonstrates judicial
willingness to prioritise transparency over corporate secrecy when public safety or
justice is at stake.

From a statutory perspective, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998 reinforces this
limitation by ensuring that contractual terms, including confidentiality agreements,
cannot override protected disclosures. In other words, employers cannot rely on
NDAs or similar clauses to prevent employees from reporting wrongdoing that falls
within the

71
111
Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41.
112
Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109.
113
Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1985] QB 526.

72
scope of protected disclosures. This represents a significant departure from systems
where contractual obligations dominate and whistleblowers face legal consequences
for disclosure.

However, it is important to note that the UK framework does not completely disregard
corporate confidentiality. Trade secrets and proprietary information continue to
receive strong protection, particularly where disclosures are not made in good faith or
do not satisfy the public interest requirement. The law thus seeks to maintain a careful
balance, ensuring that:

 legitimate business interests are protected

 but not at the cost of concealing unlawful or unethical conduct

In practical terms, this balanced approach enhances both corporate accountability and
economic protection. It encourages organisations to maintain transparency and ethical
practices while still safeguarding valuable commercial information. Employees, in
turn, are provided with a clearer legal pathway to report misconduct without
automatically violating confidentiality obligations.

When compared to India, the distinction becomes particularly significant. Indian law
strongly enforces confidentiality through contract and equity but lacks a clearly
defined public interest exception in the context of trade secrets. As a result,
disclosures made by whistleblowers may expose them to legal liability, even when
such disclosures are aimed at revealing wrongdoing. The UK model, by contrast,
provides a structured mechanism for reconciling these competing interests.

In conclusion, the UK legal framework governing corporate confidentiality

demonstrates a nuanced and balanced approach. While it recognises the importance of
protecting trade secrets and confidential information, it also ensures that such
protection does not extend to shielding illegality or misconduct. By incorporating a
clear public interest exception and limiting the enforceability of confidentiality
agreements in such cases, the UK system offers a more effective model for balancing
corporate confidentiality with whistleblowing.

73
4.4 European Union – Comparative and Balanced Legal Framework

The European Union has developed one of the most advanced and balanced legal
frameworks governing whistleblowing and trade secret protection. Unlike fragmented
systems, the EU approach is characterised by harmonisation, clarity, and a structured
balance between corporate confidentiality and public interest disclosures. This
framework is primarily governed by two key instruments: the EU Whistleblower
Directive, 2019 and the EU Trade Secrets Directive, 2016, which together create a
coherent legal mechanism addressing the core conflict examined in this study.

4.4.1 EU Whistleblower Directive, 2019

The EU Whistleblower Directive (Directive (EU) 2019/1937) was enacted to establish

minimum standards of protection for individuals reporting breaches of Union law
across Member States.114It reflects the EU’s commitment to transparency,
accountability, and effective enforcement of laws in both public and private sectors.

A defining feature of the Directive is its broad personal scope. It extends protection
not only to employees but also to former employees, job applicants, contractors,
suppliers, shareholders, trainees, and other individuals associated with an
organisation.115 This wide coverage recognises that access to information regarding
misconduct is not limited to traditional employment relationships, thereby
strengthening the overall effectiveness of whistleblower protection. The Directive
introduces a three-tier reporting mechanism, which is central to its operational
effectiveness. Firstly, organisations are required to establish internal reporting
channels, particularly where they employ 50 or more workers. These channels must
be secure, confidential, and capable of handling both written and oral complaints.116
Secondly, whistleblowers may report externally to designated public authorities where
internal mechanisms are ineffective or compromised. Thirdly, in exceptional
circumstances, disclosures may be made to the public or media, particularly where
there is an imminent threat to public interest or where prior reporting has failed.117

114
Directive (EU) 2019/1937, available at: [Link]
115
Id., art. 4.
116
Id., art. 9.
117
Id., art. 15.

74
Another significant aspect of the Directive is the emphasis on confidentiality and
protection of identity. Member States are required to ensure that the identity of the
whistleblower is not disclosed without consent, except in limited circumstances
prescribed by law.118 This protection is crucial in reducing fear of retaliation and
encouraging individuals to report wrongdoing.

The Directive also provides strong safeguards against retaliation, which are essential
for effective whistleblower protection. It prohibits any form of direct or indirect
retaliation, including dismissal, demotion, harassment, discrimination, or reputational
harm. Importantly, the Directive shifts the burden of proof to the employer, requiring
them to demonstrate that any adverse action taken against the whistleblower was
unrelated to the disclosure.119This significantly enhances enforcement and addresses
evidentiary challenges faced by whistleblowers.

In addition, the Directive emphasises support measures, including access to legal aid,
information, and financial assistance where necessary. This reflects a holistic
approach, recognising that legal protection alone is insufficient without practical
support mechanisms.

4.4.2 EU Trade Secrets Directive, 2016

The protection of trade secrets within the European Union is governed by Directive
(EU) 2016/943, which harmonises laws across Member States and provides a
consistent framework for protecting confidential business information.120

The Directive defines trade secrets as information that:

 is secret

 has commercial value because of its secrecy

 is subject to reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality121

This definition aligns with international standards under the TRIPS Agreement and
ensures uniformity across jurisdictions.

118
Id., art. 16
119
Id., art 21.
120
Directive (EU) 2016/943, available at: [Link]
121
Id., art. 2(1).

75
The Directive provides strong civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets,
including injunctions, damages, and corrective measures such as destruction or recall
of infringing goods.122 These remedies are designed to protect business interests
while ensuring effective enforcement.

However, what makes the EU framework particularly significant is its explicit

recognition of the public interest exception. Article 5 of the Directive provides that
trade secret protection shall not apply where disclosure is made for the purpose of
revealing misconduct, wrongdoing, or illegal activity, provided that such disclosure
serves the public interest.123

This provision directly addresses the central conflict between whistleblowing and
corporate confidentiality. It ensures that trade secret laws cannot be misused as a
shield to conceal unlawful conduct. At the same time, it maintains protection for
legitimate business interests by limiting the exception to disclosures made in good
faith and in the public interest.

4.4.3 Analytical Evaluation of the EU Model

The European Union framework represents a highly integrated and balanced

approach, where whistleblower protection and trade secret law operate in coordination
rather than conflict. This is particularly relevant for the present study, which examines
the tension between public interest disclosures and corporate confidentiality.

The strengths of the EU model include:

 Comprehensive coverage of whistleblowers across public and private sectors

 Mandatory reporting mechanisms ensuring accessibility and accountability

 Strong protection against retaliation, including reversal of burden of proof

 Clear statutory recognition of public interest exception

 Harmonised trade secret protection with defined limits

122
Id., arts 10-14.
123
Id., art 5.

76
This integrated approach ensures legal certainty and reduces ambiguity regarding the
permissibility of disclosures involving confidential information.

In contrast, the Indian legal framework remains fragmented and underdeveloped.

India lacks:

 a comprehensive whistleblower law applicable to the private sector

 a dedicated trade secrets statute

 a clearly defined public interest exception

As a result, whistleblowers in India face significant legal uncertainty, particularly in

cases involving trade secrets. The absence of statutory clarity discourages disclosures
and allows corporate misconduct to remain concealed. The EU model, therefore,
provides a valuable reference point for reform. It demonstrates that it is possible to
protect corporate confidentiality while simultaneously enabling whistleblowing in the
public interest, without undermining either objective.

Comparative Analysis of Whistleblowing and Trade Secret Laws: India, United

States, United Kingdom and European Union

The comparative analysis of whistleblowing and trade secret protection across

jurisdictions reveals significant differences in legal approaches, institutional strength,
and the balance between public interest and corporate confidentiality. In the context of
increasing globalisation and cross-border corporate activity, such a comparison
becomes essential to evaluate the effectiveness of India’s legal framework and
identify areas for reform.

At a foundational level, all jurisdictions recognise whistleblowing as a mechanism to

promote transparency and accountability. However, the extent of legal protection and
clarity varies considerably, with the United States, United Kingdom, and European
Union offering more structured and comprehensive frameworks compared to
India.124

Comparison of Whistleblower Laws in the US, EU, and Australia

77
124
[Link]

78
 Jurisdiction Primary Legislation Key Features

Broad protection for federal

Whistleblower Protection Act
US employees, financial incentives for
(WPA) of 1989, Dodd-Frank Act
whistleblowers

Minimum standards for

Whistleblower Directive
EU whistleblower protection, mandatory
(2019/1937)
reporting channels

Protection for public sector

Public Interest Disclosure Act
Australia whistleblowers, internal and external
2013 (PID Act)
reporting mechanisms

4.5 Whistleblower Protection: Comparative Strength

The United States provides one of the most robust whistleblower protection regimes,
particularly through statutes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002 and the Dodd-
Frank Act, 2010. These laws offer strong safeguards against retaliation, including
financial incentives for whistleblowers and direct access to regulatory authorities. The
availability of monetary rewards under Dodd-Frank significantly enhances reporting
by encouraging individuals to disclose corporate misconduct. 125

Similarly, the United Kingdom, through the Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998,
provides comprehensive protection covering both public and private sector
employees. The law incorporates the public interest test, allowing disclosures where
they serve societal welfare, and ensures protection against victimisation through
employment law remedies. 126

The European Union framework, particularly under the Whistleblower Directive,

2019, goes even further by mandating internal and external reporting mechanisms and
ensuring strong protection against retaliation across Member States. It adopts a
harmonised approach, providing clarity and consistency in whistleblower protection.

125
[Link]
between-usa-indian-law/?utm_source=[Link]#google_vignette
126
[Link]
and-uk-perspective?utm

79
In contrast, India’s whistleblower protection regime remains limited. The Whistle
Blowers Protection Act, 2014 applies primarily to the public sector and has not been
fully operationalised. There is no comprehensive protection for private sector
whistleblowers, resulting in significant legal gaps.

“Whistleblowing occurs when an employee informs the public of inappropriate

activities going on inside the organization1.”127

- Koehn (2003)

An organizational ethos that fosters voices to speak up is an essential aspect of an

effective ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) compliance workplace. One
such criterion is whistleblower protection, which is a crucial requirement to acquire in
a business environment as it opens the way for an overall corporate culture and
upholding ethical standards and safeguarding human rights. According to data by
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, from 2005 to 2018, there have been 315
attacks on Indian whistle-blowers who have exercised the RTI Act to expose scams
and corruption128.

Whistle-blower129 means “a person who tells someone in authority about something

illegal that is happening, especially in a government department or a company”. The
phrase whistleblowing is most likely derived from the analogy of a referee or umpire
drawing public attention to a foul in a game by blowing the whistle, which alerts both
law enforcement officers and the public at large to the risk. Likewise, the whistle acts
as a signal that reverberates not just within the corporation but also to the general
public and appropriate authorities. Jubb stated a nuanced definition of whistleblowing
as a “deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure” that “is provided by an individual
who has or had privileged access to an organization's data or information," but it also
distinguishes whistleblowing from generic alerting "if the statement is to have and
communicate specific importance."130 The information presented may involve fraud,

127
Chanjyot Kaur, Whistle Blowing: An Anti-Corruption Tool, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ADVANCED RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES(IJARMSS) Vol. 1
(November 2012), p.50
128
iStock, Six times Indian whistleblowers uncovered scams and made headlines (18 October,2021),
Six times
Indian whistleblowers uncovered scams and made headlines ([Link])
129
Definition of whistle-blower from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus,
WHISTLEBLOWER | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
130
Jubb, P.B., 1999, Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation, JOURNAL OF
BUSINESS ETHICS 21, p.79.

71
0
corruption, or other unethical, illegal and illegitimate practices. Disclosure is the act
of making something known131 or a fact that is made known to the public.

Whistleblowers are often subjected to reprisal, including layoffs, demotions, denial of

promotion, denial of benefits, forced resignations, a hostile work environment, and so
on. Fear of retaliation casts a shadow over the decision to blow the whistle. The
prevalence of reprisal fear has a direct influence on whether to blow the whistle or not
and can deter individuals from coming forward.

4.5.1 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ON WHISTLEBLOWER

PROTECTION IN INDIA WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC SECTOR

The legislative landscape for whistleblower protection in India, especially in the

context of the public sector, is provided under the Whistleblower Protection Act,
2014. Also, the Companies Act, 2013 and SEBI Act and regulations have relevance to
the vigil mechanism.

i. Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014:

As a way to deal with whistleblower concerns until a bill was passed by the Law
commission of India in its 179th report, the Central Government had been directed by
the Supreme Court to set up an interim administrative framework in 2004. The WPA
was previously named Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Person Making the
Disclosures Bill, 2010132.

As a result, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was given authority to act on
such complaints in 2004 when the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of
Informers Resolution (PIDPIR) was established. The Second Administrative Reforms
Commission further emphasized the necessity of an independent law to protect
whistleblowers in 2007. The UN Convention against Corruption was signed by India
in 2005, demonstrating its commitment to international agreements. This conference
reiterated how essential it is to make it more accessible to expose corruption and to
safeguard those who do so.

131
Definition of disclosure from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, DISCLOSURE |
definition in the
Cambridge English Dictionary
132
Report on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, 179th Law Commission Report, 2001

71
1
In India, this is the most significant element of legislation that addresses
whistleblower protection. The Law Commission of India advocated enacting a
whistleblower protection law since it recognised how crucial it was to safeguard those
who exposed wrongdoing. It endeavors to establish a framework for complaints to be
lodged pertaining to the revelation of any accusations of corruption or deliberate
misuse of authority or discretion against any public employee.

ii. Companies Act, 2013:

According to section 177(9), every listed company or those classes of listed

companies ought to establish a vigil framework to allow directors and employees to
report legitimate concerns in the way specified”.133 The Vigil Mechanism ensures
sufficient protection against victimization of victims. Directors and employees are
expected to report any problems or grievances. Establishing a Vigil Mechanism for
every Listed Company and the following companies: a. Companies that take public
deposits. b. Companies that have taken out borrowing from banks and state financial
institutions worth exceeding Rs. 50 crore. 134

133
Section 177(9), Chapter XII, Meetings of the Board and Its Powers of the Companies Act, 2013
134
Regula'on 7 of Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules,2014: Establishment of vigil
mechanism-
(1) Every listed company and the companies belonging to the following class or classes shall establish
a vigil
mechanism for their directors and employees to report their genuine concerns or grievances-
(a) the Companies which accept deposits from the public;
(b) the Companies which have borrowed money from banks and public financial institutions in excess
of fifty
crore rupees.
(2) The companies which are required to constitute an audit committee shall oversee the vigil
mechanism through
the committee and if any of the members of the committee have a conflict of interest in a given case,
they should
recuse themselves and the others on the committee would deal with the matter on hand.
(3) In case of other companies, the Board of directors shall nominate a director to play the role of audit
committee
for the purpose of vigil mechanism to whom other directors and employees may report their concerns.
(4) The vigil mechanism shall provide for adequate safeguards against victimisation of employees and
directors
who avail of the vigil mechanism and also provide for direct access to the Chairperson of the Audit
Committee or
the director nominated to play the role of Audit Committee, as the case may be, in exceptional cases.
(5) In case of repeated frivolous complaints being filed by a director or an employee, the audit
committee or the
director nominated to play the role of audit committee may take suitable action against the concerned
director or
employee including reprimand.

80
A director must be nominated by the Board of Directors to serve as the Audit
Committee for the purposes of the Vigil Mechanism for reporting. The individual who
experiences wrongdoing will have direct contact with the Audit Committee's
Chairperson or Nominated Director. The audit committee or the director nominated
may take appropriate measures against the responsible director or employee,
including reprimand, in the event of repeated false allegations.

iii. SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015:

Vigil mechanism135 which states that the listed company must establish a
whistleblower policy and vigil mechanism for directors and employees to raise
legitimate concerns. Every listed company is mandated by Regulation 46136 to
publish information on its whistleblower policy and vigil mechanism in a distinct part
on its website. Furthermore, in accordance with Regulations 34 and 53, the company
must outline its whistleblower policy and vigil mechanism in its annual report under
the umbrella of corporate governance. It must also disclose that no employees have
been refused access to the audit committee.

iv. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulation, 2015: Whistleblower

protection is indirectly in nexus with SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading)
Regulation, 2015, where the unpublished price sensitive information has to be
protected without it being misused by the persons who are in possession of
such information and preventing it from leaking. If there is a possibility of
such leakage, the whistleblowers can report this wrongdoing.137

135
Regulation 22 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 -
Vigil
mechanism states
(1) The listed entity shall formulate a vigil mechanism 17[/whistle blower policy] for directors and
employees to
report genuine concerns.
(2) The vigil mechanism shall provide for adequate safeguards against victimization of director(s) or
employee(s) or any other person who avail the mechanism and also provide for direct access to the
chairperson of the audit committee in appropriate or exceptional cases
136
Regulation 46(2) (e) of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015,
“The listed entity shall disseminate the following information [under a separate section
on its website details of establishment of vigil mechanism/ WhistleBlower policy”.
137
Regulation 9A of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulation, 2015-Institutional Mechanism
for
Prevention of Insider trading.
(6) The listed company shall have a whistle-blower policy and make employees aware of such policy
to enable employees to report instances of leak of unpublished price sensitive information.

81
 4.5.2 Trade Secret Protection: Comparative Position

Trade secret protection also varies significantly across jurisdictions. The United States
has a strong statutory framework under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 2016, which
provides federal protection, uniform enforcement, and powerful remedies including
injunctions, damages, and seizure of property.

The European Union, through the Trade Secrets Directive, 2016, offers harmonised
protection while maintaining flexibility for Member States. Importantly, the Directive
incorporates a public interest exception, ensuring that trade secret protection does not
extend to concealment of wrongdoing.

The United Kingdom relies on common law principles of breach of confidence and
contractual protections, supplemented by statutory whistleblower protections that
limit the enforceability of confidentiality agreements in public interest disclosures.

India, however, lacks a dedicated statute on trade secrets. Protection is derived from
contract law, equity, and scattered statutory provisions such as the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code. This fragmented approach leads to
uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement.

v. Clause 49 of the Listing Agreement:

Under Annexure I D, the whistleblower policy comes under the non-mandatory

requirements, where the company establish this whistleblower policy for the
employees to expose the wrongdoing that takes place in the organisation. This can be
in the form of fraud either apparent or suspected, unethical behaviour, corruption or
breaching of the code of conduct implemented. It incorporates that the company's
vigil framework must also be stated in the board report and on the corporate website.
Now the whistleblowing policy is made mandatory after the revised clause 49 of the
listing agreement.138

vi. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PCA), India's

principal anticorruption law, renders it illegal, among other things, to take and give

138
Clause 49 of the listing agreement is applicable to all listed company through the official circular
with effect from 1st October, 2014

82
"undue advantage" to "public servants." Under the PCA, violations are punishable by
law for individuals and organizations.

In the case of CBI v. Ramesh Gelli & Ors21139, the Indian Supreme Court ruled
that, in accordance with specific provisions of Indian banking legislation, bank
employees— private or public— are therefore considered public servants for the
purposes of the PCA. India lacks presently have any laws that forbids bribing foreign
public servants, however it is arguable whether the Companies Act would apply in
this case as fraud. After being proposed in Parliament, the Prevention of Bribery of
Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public Interest Organizations Bill 2011
lapsed since it did not get approval from the legislature.

vii. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003:

The Central Vigilance Commission, which is the principal body tasked with
investigating or directing inquiry of offenses purportedly committed under the PCA,
is established by this Act. It also oversees the planning, execution, evaluation, and
reform of vigilance operations within central government agencies. When it comes to
PCA- related inquiries, it supervises the CBI and assesses how far the investigations
have come140.

In India, the Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘CVC’)

concentrates on issues of vigilance and corruption involving public servants. “Public
servant” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (c) of section 2 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) but shall not include a Judge of the
Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court;141 Whilst it assists multiple public sector
organizations promote integrity and battle corruption, its regulations are often brought
up in relation to protecting whistleblowers. Corruption is defined by myriad of
persons, it has no universal definition, however it is denoted as illegal, bad, or
dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power142. "CVC is the
body in charge

139
CBI v. Ramesh Gelli & Ors, 2016 (3) SCC 788.
140
Aditya Vikram Bhat, Prerak Ved, India: The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Review, (Feb 03,
2020), India:
The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Review ([Link])
141
Section 3(i) of the whistleblowers protection Act, 2014
142
Definition of corruption from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus,
CORRUPTION |
83
English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

84
of hearing complaints from whistleblowers and offering them protection. For the
purpose of handling these complaints of harassment, the Commission has a special
cell, but no authority to enforce.”143 However, the CVC's failure to safeguard
informants due to the "dysfunctional" behaviour of the CVC officials144.

Whistleblowers who experienced workplace reprisal may be authorized by the CVC

to be reinstated in their prior jobs. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2014 also
places the onus of producing proof on the public official to demonstrate that any
retaliatory action taken against a whistleblower.145 The legislation ensures
confidentiality, which is another important aspect. Any public servant who divulges a
complainant's identity without prior authorization faces up to three years in prison and
a fine of up to 50,000 rupees. Individuals and organizations that refuse to disclose the
information that the CVC demands or who deliberately do so with information that is
inaccurate, incomplete, or deceptive are subject to further penalties.146

GOI Resolution on Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer, where the
CVC is regarded as the “'Designated Agency” authorized by the government of India
in order to receive complaints on any alleged misconduct, such as corruption, that
takes place in the office and recommend appropriate action. This commission is
restricted to government companies, societies, or local authorities owned or controlled
by the Central Government and not the state governments or their corporations.

viii. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013:

The enactment of Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayukta at the State level was
mandated by the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. The Lokayukta is the anti-
corruption body at the state level where Lokpal for the centre. It is charged for
promptly addressing public concerns and conducting investigations into claims of
corruption and maladministration against public employees. Analyzing data from
180 nations, India

143
CVC seeks powers to protect whistleblowers, The Indian Express (Sep 29, 2023), CVC seeks
powers to protect whistleblowers | India News - The Indian Express
144
Former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti
145
Christine Liu, India's Whistleblower Protection Act - An Important Step, But Not Enough,
([Link]),GLOBAL ANTICORRUPTION BLOG, (June 5, 2014)
146
8section 16 of Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 states
Penalty for revealing identity of complainant:
—Any person, who negligently or malafidely reveals the identity of a complainant shall, without
prejudice to the other provisions of this Act, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
85
extend up to three years and also to fine which may extend up to fifty thousand rupees.

86
ranks 85th in the Corruption Perception Index for 2021. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013 is amended by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016 with
regard to public officers' disclosure of assets and liabilities, as well as those of their
spouses and dependent children.

4.5.3 Public Interest Exception and Legal Balance

One of the most critical aspects of this comparative analysis is the presence (or
absence) of a public interest exception, which determines whether disclosure of
confidential information can be justified.

The European Union explicitly recognises this exception under the Trade Secrets
Directive, allowing disclosure of confidential information where it reveals
wrongdoing. This creates a clear legal balance between corporate confidentiality and
public accountability.

The United Kingdom also incorporates this balance through the public interest test
under PIDA, ensuring that confidentiality obligations cannot override legitimate
disclosures.

In the United States, while protections exist, the approach is more restrictive.
Disclosure of trade secrets is generally permitted only under specific conditions, such
as reporting to government authorities or courts.

India, however, lacks a clearly defined public interest exception in the context of trade
secrets. This creates a significant legal conflict, as whistleblowers may face liability
for breach of confidentiality even when acting in the public interest.

4.5.4 Private Sector Coverage

Another major point of divergence is the treatment of private sector whistleblowers.

 United States: Strong protection, including financial incentives

 United Kingdom: Full coverage under PIDA

 European Union: Mandatory protection across sectors

 India: No comprehensive statutory protection

87
This gap is particularly important because most corporate misconduct and trade secret-
related disputes arise in the private sector. The absence of protection in India
significantly weakens the effectiveness of whistleblowing as a regulatory mechanism.

4.5.5 Enforcement and Practical Effectiveness

The effectiveness of whistleblower laws depends not only on statutory provisions but also
on enforcement mechanisms.

The United States and European Union provide strong enforcement frameworks,
including regulatory oversight, legal remedies, and institutional support. The EU
Directive also shifts the burden of proof, making it easier for whistleblowers to
establish retaliation.

The United Kingdom ensures enforcement through employment tribunals and well-
developed case law.

India, on the other hand, suffers from weak enforcement, lack of institutional support, and
delays in implementation. This results in a gap between law and practice, where
whistleblowers continue to face significant risks despite legal recognition.

4.5.6 Key Comparative Observations

From the above analysis, the following key observations emerge:

 India lacks a comprehensive and functional whistleblower protection regime

 There is no statutory recognition of trade secrets in India

 Public interest exceptions are clearly defined in EU and UK, but absent in
India

 Private sector whistleblowers are protected internationally but not in India

 Enforcement mechanisms in India remain weak compared to other

jurisdictions These differences highlight the structural weaknesses in the Indian legal

framework.

88
 4.5.7 Analytical Conclusion

The comparative analysis clearly demonstrates that while jurisdictions such as the United
States, United Kingdom, and European Union have developed integrated and
balanced frameworks, India continues to operate within a fragmented and
underdeveloped system.

The EU model, in particular, represents the most effective approach, as it explicitly

balances whistleblower protection with trade secret confidentiality through statutory
provisions. The UK framework also provides a strong balance through the public
interest test, while the US offers robust enforcement and incentives.

India’s failure to provide similar protections results in legal uncertainty and discourages
disclosures, particularly in cases involving corporate confidentiality. As a result, the
law tends to prioritise trade secret protection over public interest, undermining
transparency and accountability.

Therefore, it is evident that India must adopt a more coherent, comprehensive, and
balanced legal framework, drawing from international best practices, to effectively
address the conflict between whistleblowing and corporate confidentiality.

89