The Madras High Court recently observed that even though the courts had a duty to protect the rights of whistleblowers, the whistleblowers are expected to exercise their rights in the manner known to law and excess exercise or high handednedd can never be allowed.
Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad were considering a plea to enquire into the enhancement of the financial and social status of a whistleblower. The petitioner alleged that the whistleblower was filing petitions for initiation of action against officials of the Hindu Religioud and Charitable Endowments [HR&CE] Department and the temple authorities and in the process was acting excessively inside the temple premises and threatening officials and staff of the temple.
Thus, it was argued that the whistleblower is interfering with the peaceful worship of the devotees and abusing his position as a whistleblower.
The whistleblower, on the other hand, stated that he has no intention to commit any illegality or irregularity as alleged. He admitted that there was a quarrel between himself and the officials but that he had no intention to threaten or act in any manner in violation of the law. He stated that his intention is to safeguard the temple properties, jewels, etc. which are all being abused and misused by the custodian of such properties with the collusion of the authorities.
He also gave an undertaking that he will not indulge in any illegal activities or axceed in public places or...
Matt Arnold had done nothing wrong when a staff member approached him at the Sainsbury’s East Dulwich checkout. He had scanned his items, tapped his Nectar card, and was told he couldn’t be served...