Sub: Complaint procedure under PIDPI.
Sanjeev Goyal
PMOPG/E/2025/0145117
Concerned Department: CVC.
The current policy of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which does not entertain anonymous or pseudonymous complaints, requires urgent review. This procedure, while seemingly intended to prevent malicious and frivolous complaints, has the unintended consequence of discouraging genuine whistleblowers and hindering the effective reporting of corruption.
Problem with the Current Policy: The CVC's reliance on a disclosed identity poses a significant barrier to reporting. Many citizens, despite having concrete and verifiable evidence, are reluctant to come forward due to a profound fear of retaliation, harassment, or data breaches. While the CVC may offer assurances of protection, the pervasive public mistrust in assurances and the potential for revenge from powerful, corrupt individuals is a major deterrent. This fear is not unfounded and, in practice, the current system inadvertently benefits those engaged in corrupt activities by creating a safe haven where genuine complaints cannot be lodged without personal risk.
Justification for a New, Fact-Based Approach: The true value of a complaint lies not in the identity of the person making it, but in the authenticity of the facts it presents. A complaint, whether anonymous or not, that provides full, specific details, including dates, locations, and supporting evidence, should be given due consideration.
To address the concern of frivolous complaints, a standardized, scrutiny process could be devised. This process would approve and advance only those anonymous complaints that contain:
- Verifiable facts and specific allegations.
- Clear, primary evidence (e.g., documents, data, or media).
- A credible "vigilance angle" related to corruption or misuse of power.
This approach would filter out unsubstantiated claims while ensuring that trustworthy, actionable intelligence is not lost simply because the source wishes to remain anonymous.
Inconsistencies in Existing Procedures: The current complaint handling process contains a surprising contradiction. Under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers (PIDPI) Resolution, a complainant is required to disclose their identity but is then advised to avoid further contact with the CVC after filing. This effectively creates a "hands-off" system where the CVC is the sole arbiter of the complaint's fate. If a complainant is expected to "forget about" the complaint after filing, it logically follows disclosure of identity is not relevant at all. The focus should be on the facts presented, not the person presenting them.
Furthermore, the PIDPI procedure advises citizens to send complaints via post and avoid writing the name and address on the outer envelope to maintain secrecy. But the Post Office simply would not accept such an envelope? So practically one cannot file a complaint under PIDPI.
Conclusion: By creating a robust, fact-based system for handling anonymous complaints, the CVC could significantly empower citizens and gain access to a vital source of information on corruption. This change would not only better align with the spirit of the PIDPI Resolution but also demonstrate a stronger commitment to transparency and accountability. The policy gap that needs to be bridged to truly encourage public participation in the fight against corruption. A review of this policy is essential to ensure that the current system is not, as it seems, working in favor of the corrupt by silencing those with the courage to come forward.
