Whistle blower Protection: A Comparative Analysis between USA and Indian Law

Introduction

In the era of modern corporate governance, the practice of whistleblowing has emerged as a critical mechanism, acting as both a legal as well as a moral safeguard against malicious practices such as fraud, corruption and other forms of white-collar crime. Whistleblowers act as staunch pillars of transparency and accountability as they play an essential role in exposing internal misconduct by large, established corporate bodies which in turn have long-lasting implications on the public at large.

While the practice is universally recognized as a central element for regulating corporate governance practices, thereby deserving recognition and protection, the degree to which that protection is granted or implemented varies amongst jurisdictions. By way of this paper, I aim to conduct an in-depth comparative analysis with respect to whistleblower protection, primarily focusing on the practices in USA and India, emphasizing how despite the presence of statutory provisions affording protection, whistleblowers in India face significantly higher risk due to a plethora of implemental issues such as lack of anonymity, deficient monetary incentives and a deep rooted aversion to dissent in society, as opposed to the practice in the United States.

Meaning of Whistleblowing

“Whistleblowing”, in essence, is a practice where a current or former employee deliberately discloses information pertaining to illegitimate activity conducted by his employer to the relevant authorities. The practice over the years has been interpreted to embody a form of organizational dissent, in turn motivated by the civic and moral duty to expose and rectify corporate wrongdoings by institutions (public or private).

Types of Whistleblowing

Whistleblowing can be of two types- internal and external.

• Internal Whistleblowing: The former being the practice where the disclosure is made by the employee to authorities within the organization itself such as supervisors, internal auditors etc.
• External Whistleblowing: The latter involves the practice of providing information to external agencies such as the media, enforcement authorities etc.

Role in Corporate Governance

Irrespective of whether the disclosure is internal or external, the role and importance of the practice in shaping responsible business conduct cannot be understated, because of which it becomes important for jurisdictions to give statutory recognition to the same. Prime facie, whistleblowers often act as the first identifiers of any illegitimate practice within the organization, which may have been overlooked or in some cases purposely buried by the management.

Whistleblowers ought to be trenched in the very foundation of good governance as they have the potential of acting as a medium of early fraud detection, having positive economic and social implications thereby fostering stability and integrity within organizations. This makes it imperative for jurisdictions to come up with robust protection mechanisms that not only safeguard the interest of the whistleblowers but also ensure adequate restoration and rehabilitation such that their future interests are protected.

Risks and Retaliation Faced by Whistleblowers

On the other hand, one must note that every ethical act of disclosure has a challenging counterpart- which is often the personal risk that whistleblowers carry of social alienation as a direct result of their disclosure. At the same time of serving as essential guardians, the practice of whistleblowing is often accompanied with a certain degree of resistance or retaliation by the management.

This includes isolation, harassment, demotion and at times, even termination. This form of retaliation is a bid to deter future whistleblowers from speaking out thereby enabling misconduct to persevere unchecked, thereby further necessitating the need for stringent norms which must be engrained in the statutory provisions of a regime.

Need for Statutory Frameworks

Keeping these contrasting dimensions of ethical necessity on one hand and potential ostracization on the other, it is essential for one to examine the current statutory frameworks governing as well as protecting the act of whistleblowing.

Whistleblower Protection Laws In USA

Whistleblower protection in the United States finds its roots in the 1860s during the early days of the False Claims Act (FCA) which was one of the first laws providing protections to workers employed in the public sector.

Origins In The False Claims Act

The statute saw an amendment in 1989 where Congress further added prohibitions against employers undertaking coercive actions against whistleblowers who made attempts to report fraud in the government sectors.

The 1980s and 1990s saw several key amendments to laws when it comes to safeguarding the interest of whistleblowers such as the Whistleblower Protection Act, 1986 that actively prohibited retaliation in the form of demotion, suspension etc.

Sarbanes–Oxley Act, 2002 (SOX)

The Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SOX”) was enacted in response to corporate scandals like Enron, Arthur Anderson and World Com which provided protection to employees of publicly traded companies.¹

The relevant section of the SOX being Section 806 / 18 U.S.C. § 1514A categorically states:

“Whistleblower Protection for employees of Publicly Traded Companies—No company with a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee—”

Protected Activities Under SOX

1. To provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by:
   • a. A Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
   • b. Any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or
   • c. A person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct).
2. To file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.

Criminal Penalties And Employer Obligations

Further, the SOX Act imposed criminal penalty with imprisonment upto 10 years for any person who “knowingly” with the intention of retaliating undertook action which was considered harmful to a person for providing information relating to the commission of a federal offence under Section 1107 / 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

In addition, the SOX Act also advocated for the employers to undertake measures to actively advise employees about the provisions of the Act through the medium of internal policies, training sessions etc., while setting up an efficient system that facilitates internal reporting which is uniformly imposed.

Limitations And Critiques Of SOX

Although the SOX Act is known to bring significant reform and progress in the nation when it comes to offering whistleblowers protection, over time, relevant case law and analysis highlighted significant gaps in the provisions of the Act.

• A common critique that crops up is the limited scope of protected disclosures under 18 USC § 1514A, where protection is limited to employees that report misconduct only related to mail fraud, wire fraud or a rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
• It further limited protections to employees of publicly traded companies thereby leaving employees of privately owned companies unprotected.
• Additionally, critiques opined that the limitation period for filing the retaliation complaint under the Act i.e. 90 days is insufficient for employees that have faced coercive action in the form of termination and are seeking counsel to report the same.²

Key Case Law Interpreting SOX

Boeing Co. v. Tides (9th Cir., 2011)

At this point it becomes imperative to refer to certain US caselaw that aided in identifying as well as addressing certain limitations in the provisions of the Act. A landmark case is that of Boeing Co. v. Tides (9th Cir., 2011).³

In the said case, Boeing employees Matthew Tides and Thomas Giles working in the capacity of auditors developed apprehensions about certain mismanagement of resources in violation of SOX provisions.

The issue arose when instead of reporting their concerns via internal disclosure mechanisms or to the federal authorities, the employees revealed the information to the media through a Seattle Post journalist. Consequently, Boeing terminated the persons citing violation of company policy.

The question of law before the Court was whether the protection offered under SOX provisions applies to employees who have made disclosures about potential violations to the media.

The Court applied the plain meaning rule to the language of the statute noting that the text of the statute establishes no basis for reporting of violations to the media. The Court also examined the Senate Judiciary Committee Report (S. Rep. No. 107-146, 2002) concluding that the purpose behind the Act was to encourage reporting of fraud to federal authorities or to the appropriate persons within the organization itself.

The Court emphasised against developing expansive interpretations of the provisions of the SOX as the same would nullify the intent of the Act which mandated explicit disclosure to the authorities enumerated in the language of the statute. Resultantly, the Court held that the protection of the Act did not extend to disclosures made to the media and the retaliatory action of termination was affirmed.

Garvey v. Morgan Stanley

Another common deficiency that comes up when analysing the provisions of the SOX Act is the lack of applicability of the protective law of the Act to persons employed in foreign subsidiaries of US based publicly traded companies.

A case that becomes relevant is that of Garvey v. Morgan Stanley.⁴ Pithily put, the case related to an employee working in a foreign subsidiary of a US based company in Hong Kong.

The complainant claimed that he had been unfairly discharged after he had taken objection to certain practices of the organization he suspected to be in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. A suit was filed under SOX’s anti-retaliation provision accordingly by the complainant.

The Court categorically stated that the text, context along with the legislative intent of Section 806 point towards the preclusion of extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Act. Thus, the Circuit Court confirmed the idea that employees working for multinational subsidiaries of American publicly traded companies would fall outside the domain of the protection laws guaranteed under the SOX.

Dodd–Frank Act And Expansion Of Protections

Following in the footsteps of the SOX Act, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Consumer Protection Act was signed into law developing mechanisms that further strengthen and expand the coverage of the pre-existing provisions under the SOX. These improvements were incorporated via key amendments introduced through Sections in the Dodd-Frank.

Whistleblower Protection Under the Dodd-Frank Act

Some of the important provisions are listed as follows:

Sec. 922. Whistleblower Protection

(a) In General.— The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 21E the following:

Sec. 21F. Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection

Definitions

(a) Definitions.— In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

Clause	Definition
(1)	Covered Judicial or Administrative Action.— The term “covered judicial or administrative action” means any judicial or administrative action brought by the Commission under the securities laws that results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.
(2)	Fund.— The term “Fund” means the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Protection Fund.
(3)	Original Information.— The term “original information” means information that…. 11 XXXX …….

Inspector General Study and Considerations

• (G) Whether, in the interest of protecting investors and identifying and preventing fraud, it would be useful for Congress to consider empowering whistleblowers or other individuals, who have already attempted to pursue the case through the Commission, to have a private right of action to bring suit based on the facts of the same case, on behalf of the Government and themselves, against persons who have committed securities fraud.
• (H)
  • (i) Whether the exemption under section 552(b)(3) of title 5 (known as the Freedom of Information Act) established in section 21F(h)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as added by this Act, aids whistleblowers in disclosing information to the Commission.
  • (ii) What impact the exemption described in clause (i) has had on the ability of the public to access information about the regulation and enforcement by the Commission of securities.
  • (iii) Any recommendations on whether the exemption described in clause (i) should remain in effect.
• (I) Such other matters as the Inspector General deems appropriate.

Report Requirement

(2) Report.— Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall—

1. Submit a report on the findings of the study required under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House; and
2. Make the report described in subparagraph (A) available to the public through publication of the report on the website of the Commission.

Key Amendments Introduced by the Dodd-Frank Act

The amendments made via Dodd-Frank with respect to whistleblower protection were centred around a few significant factors. The predominant change was rooted in the expansion of the coverage offered under whistleblower protection laws.

• Coverage was extended to employees working for subsidiaries or affiliated organizations, provided their financials are included in the consolidated statements of U.S. publicly traded companies.
• The initial reporting period under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was extended from 90 days to 180 days.

This extension provides employees adequate time to seek legal counsel and undertake appropriate action. Employees often hesitate to come forward due to fear of retaliation. The additional 90 days offers breathing room and sufficient opportunity to gather material evidence pertaining to misconduct.

Monetary Incentives for Whistleblowers

Another significant measure that makes Dodd-Frank the most advanced and comprehensive statute for whistleblower protection in the United States is the establishment of monetary awards.

• Awards range from 10% to 30% of the monetary sanctions recovered.
• These incentives apply where enforcement actions exceed 1 million U.S. dollars.

Additionally, the Act allows injured employees to seek a jury trial against entities that engage in coercive or retaliatory actions.

Judicial Interpretation and Expansion of Protection

The courts played an extensive role in establishing Dodd-Frank as a cornerstone for modern whistleblower protection and as an effective extension of SOX. Judicial interpretation has expanded the Act’s reach while preserving its robust safeguards.

Lawson v. FMR LLC

A crucial example is the case of Lawson v. FMR LLC. The case involved two employees, Lawson and Zang, who worked for private companies providing management and consultation services to a publicly traded company registered with the SEC, known as “Fidelity Mutual Funds.”

The employees reported fraudulent practices within the Fidelity group and filed complaints under Section 806 of the SOX Act. The central issue before the Court was whether employees of private contractors serving public companies are entitled to SOX protections.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, relied on a textual analysis of the statute. The phrase “any officer, employee, contractor, or agent” was interpreted to naturally include employees of organizations that engaged in retaliatory conduct.

The Court also observed that corporate fraud often involves accounting firms and contractors, reinforcing Congressional intent to ensure broad coverage to detect fraud at an early stage.

Intersection of SOX and Dodd-Frank

Although the complaint in the case was filed under SOX, the Court’s verdict reflected Congress’s inclination toward broader whistleblower protection, an approach later mirrored in the enactment of Dodd-Frank.

Practical Impact of Dodd-Frank

The practical efficiency of Dodd-Frank is evident from recent statistics. During the 2023 fiscal year:

• Whistleblowers received an estimated 2 billion U.S. dollars in rewards through the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
• Information provided led to enforcement actions resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding 6 billion U.S. dollars.
• Approximately 4 billion U.S. dollars were recovered as disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits.

Comparative Perspective: United States and India

The above discussion demonstrates that the United States’ whistleblower protection framework has evolved significantly, offering robust and effective safeguards. In contrast, corresponding legislation in India remains comparatively stagnant, facing enforcement challenges and limited practical efficacy.

Whistleblower Protection Laws in India

India experienced massive uproar in the early 2000s following a series of high profile cases involving retaliation against public servants for exposing wrongdoing and corruption in the public sector.

Background: The Satyendra Dubey Case

A critical catalyst for the movement demanding robust mechanisms for whistle blower protection in India was the murder of Satyendra Dubey in 2003. Satyendra Dubey was a project engineer employed in the public sector with the National Highways Authority of India who discovered serious irregularities in the highway-construction contracts involving his organisation such as mismanagement of funds, violation of the organisational standards and inadequate construction of the assigned projects.

Subsequently, Satyendra decided on writing to the Prime Minister’s office thereby highlighting and detailing the organisational misconduct observed by him. It is important to note that anonymity was explicitly requested by Satyendra when writing the letter to the Prime Minister.

On the night of 27th November 2003, Satyendra was shot dead. While the probe conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation declared the murder to be a part of a robbery, the masses of India remained unsatisfied with the investigation and suspected something more sinister i.e. the killing being a retaliation of Satyendra’s whistleblowing.⁷

The incident acted as a trigger for major public outcry in the nation with people emphasising on an urgent requirement for developing a framework offering adequate protection to whistle blowers.

Legislative Response in India

In response, the Law Commission of India in its 179th report “Public Interest, Disclosure, and Protection of Informers” advocated for a mechanism where individuals making disclosures about misconduct in public offices were protected.

Year / Date	Legislative Development
26 August 2010	Bill introduced in Lok Sabha as the “Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010”
2011	Redrafted as the “Whistleblowers Protection Bill, 2011”
27 December 2011	Passed by the Lok Sabha
21 February 2014	Passed by the Rajya Sabha
2014	Enactment of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014

This culminated in the enactment of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 (hereinafter “the Act”) which is till date, the sole statutory framework explicitly dealing with safeguarding whistle blowers in India.

A noteworthy observation is that under Section 1(3) of the Act, the coming into force of the present statute is subject to notification by the Central Government, which is awaited till date, thereby rendering the Whistle Blower Protection Act non-operational as of 2025.

Key Safeguards Under the Act

Despite its non-operational status, for the sake of providing critical insight into the protection laws of India, it is imperative for one to analyse the provisions of the Act that safeguard whistle blowers against retaliation. Some of these key provisions are⁸:

Section 11. Safeguards against victimisation.—

(1) The Central Government shall ensure that no person or a public servant who has made a disclosure under this Act is victimised by initiation of any proceedings or otherwise merely on the ground that such person or a public servant had made a disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act.

(2) If any person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made disclosure or rendered assistance in inquiry under this Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, and such authority shall take such action, as deemed fit and may give suitable directions to the concerned public servant or the public authority, as the case may be, to protect such person from being victimised or avoid his victimisation:

Provided that the Competent Authority shall, before giving any such direction to the public authority or public servant, give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and the public authority or public servant, as the case may be:

Provided further that in any such hearing, the burden of proof that the alleged action on the part of the public authority is not victimisation, shall lie on the public authority.

(3) Every direction given under sub-section (2) by the Competent Authority shall be binding upon the public servant or the public authority against whom the allegation of victimisation has been proved.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the power to give directions under sub-section (2), in relation to a public servant, shall include the power to direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure, to the status quo ante.

(5) Any person who wilfully does not comply with the direction of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2), shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to thirty thousand rupees.

Limitations and Structural Deficiencies

While this statutory framework can be considered sufficient for laying the foundation for whistleblower protection laws in India, at the same time, there are certain fundamental flaws and intrinsic deficiencies in the legislation that act as barriers in turn preventing harmonization of the Indian whistle blower protection laws with the international standards.

These structural shortcomings further hinder the law’s ability to provide effective safeguards that promote transparency and accountability in the corporate sector in India.

• A critical flaw, which was earlier observed in the US code as well, is the statutory exclusion of the employees engaged in the private sector.
• The Whistle Blower Protection Act of India explicitly applies only to employees that have made disclosures about public servants defined in Section 3 of the Act.
• This renders the Act ineffective in regulating a large chunk of corruption cases specifically involving large multinational companies, private public partnerships etc., thereby giving private companies a free hand in engaging in retaliatory practices against dissent.

Procedural Gaps and Lack of Incentives

The Act also falls short of laying out certain mechanisms which are fundamental to providing protection to a whistle blower such as maintaining anonymity, provisions that guarantee physical security etc.

There is also a dearth of timelines in the statute as there is no explicit deadline mentioned for the purpose of inquiring into and disposing of disclosures, leading to procedural ambiguity which results in a majority of the disclosures going unaddressed.

The most significant flaw in the Act is the failure to include any form of monetary compensation or legal assistance to the whistle blowers such that they are given reassurance and confidence to report against the big corporates.⁹

The lack of such provisions creates an environment of professional and personal insecurity for the whistle blower thus making it extremely rare for a person to be willing to report at their personal expense for the good of society.

Comparative Analysis

Although, both jurisdictions have categorically laid down the foundational framework recognizing whistle blowers as well as the importance of the role they play in ensuring transparency and accountability in the world of corporate governance; bureaucratic lethargy to some extent has led to statutory limitations ⁹ that render the protective provisions of the legislation ineffective in certain scenarios.

Based on the discussion in the former part of the paper, an inference can be drawn that as of 2025, the US has developed a multi layered framework which while not being perfect, is still progressively expansive, starting from the False Claims Act and thereafter evolving through the SOX Act via the amendments in the Dodd Frank Statute.

Collectively, these statutes exhibit three defining features that enable effective disclosures while guaranteeing moral and financial incentives for the whistle blower.

Defining Features of the United States Whistleblower Framework

The primary features instilled in the American legislation—be it statutorily incorporated or via precedent—that give it an advantage over the Indian Framework can be categorized as the following:

1. Broad and Comprehensive Coverage

The US framework extends coverage to a wide superset of individuals ranging from employees, contractors, officers and affiliates. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act enable a private individual to bring a civil remedy in the form of a suit on behalf of the government against entities engaging in mismanagement of public funds.

The SOX and Dodd Frank explicitly provide protection to employees of publicly traded companies and have been interpreted to extend protection to even its subsidiaries and affiliates irrespective of the fact whether they are privately owned or not.

The expansive interpretation of the provisions of the SOX and Dodd Frank by Courts (as demonstrated in cases above eg. Lawson v. FMR) demonstrates staunch judicial commitment to ensure that the legislative intent of offering broad robust protections materializes in practice.

2. Clear and Effective Anti-Retaliation Mechanisms

As discussed above, Section 806 of the SOX explicitly prohibits employers from engaging in any activity that involves harassing, discharging, demoting or threatening employees who have lawfully reported misconduct within the organization.

The Dodd Frank provides for an independent right of action to aggrieved whistle blowers who can seek compensatory damages and even reinstatement.

3. Monetary Incentives for Disclosure

The provision of monetary rewards for whistle blowers giving successful disclosures, not only serves as a tool of encouragement for them, but also plays a critical role in balancing the personal as well as economic costs borne by the whistle blower while gathering evidence in order to substantially establish misconduct.

Limitations of the Indian Whistleblower Framework

While the Whistle Blower Protection Act, 2014 represents a formal, established framework recognizing the need for safeguarding the interests of whistle blowers, the statute itself despite being enacted remains largely dormant in function.

As discussed previously, Section 1(3) of the Act mandates a notification from the Central Government for the provisions to have applicability within the jurisdiction of India, which is yet to be complied with. In the absence of the Central Government Notification, the provisions of the Act remain non-operational despite being legally recognized.

Some critiques attribute the delay in passing the notification to weak political will of the government to frame rules that would hold the government accountable for its actions. A combination of these factors demonstrates legislative inertia which in turn has led to the stagnation of the protective provisions of the Act.

Procedural and Structural Deficiencies

• The Act is severely deficient in anti-retaliation mechanisms, thereby adding to the burden of a whistle blower.
• There is a dearth of procedural clarity with respect to reporting mechanisms.
• No timeline is prescribed for initiating and concluding an inquiry based on a valid disclosure.
• The whistle blower remains unaware of the status of the investigation.
• There is no clear enforcement agency or authority stipulated, unlike the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US.

Another procedural hurdle observed in the Indian Act is Section 11(2), which places the onus of proof of demonstrating retaliation or victimization on the whistle blower, as opposed to the US statute which adopts a presumptive model where only a prima facie act of retaliation must be proved.

Whistleblowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015

The Whistleblowers Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Indian Parliament in a bid to impose major curbs on the kind of disclosures to be made by whistle blowers under the Act.

Through the amendment, the Government sought to introduce exemptions to Section 4 of the Act, implying that any disclosure:

• Not in “public interest”,
• Affecting the “sovereignty and integrity of India”, or
• Relating to “information received in confidence from a foreign government”

would be considered outside the domain of inquiry under Indian law.

Although not enacted, the amendment reflects a governmental trend to narrow the ambit of inquiry, thereby diluting the original legislative intent of ensuring fair practice in the public sector.

The amendment appears to be a step towards suppressing dissent by subjecting complaints to preliminary scrutiny even before their substance can be inquired into, thereby granting corruption an unchecked reign.

Societal Perception of Whistleblowing in India

Another important issue is the general perception of whistle blowing within Indian society. Internal reporting is often met with non-serious and lethargic management responses due to the absence of robust reporting mechanisms.

The whistle blower is often cornered as a disruptive voice. External reporting is perceived as an act of betrayal, leading to further alienation and isolation.

Need for Cultural and Institutional Reform

The starting point lies in imposing laws and developing programs that instill a cultural transition from viewing whistle blowing as disloyalty to recognizing it as a duty to the public and to fair corporate practice.

A successful whistleblower policy depends not merely on formal rules prohibiting retaliation, but on creating an institutional framework that prioritizes public duty while offering adequate private incentives.

While the Indian framework remains committed to statutory protection, its fragile implementation highlights the need for policies aligned with ground realities. The deficit lies not in the absence of law, but in the failure to account for behavioral responses to risk, reducing statutory protections to mere formal guarantees. End-Notes:

1. See Whistleblower Laws: Evolution and Employee Protection, HG.org Legal Resources, https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/whistleblower-laws-evolution-and-employee-protection-64096 (last visited Nov. 3, 2025).
2. Private Sector Whistleblowers: Are There Sufficient Legal Protections?: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Education and Labor, 110th Cong. (2008) (testimony and transcript available at https://www.congress.gov/event/110th-congress/house-event/LC8565/text) (last visited Nov. 4, 2025).
3. Tides v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2011).
4. Garvey v. Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, 56 F.4th 110 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
5. Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (2014).
6. Geoff Schweller, Dodd-Frank Act Programs Have Awarded Over $2 Billion to Whistleblowers, Whistleblower Network News (Nov. 14, 2023), https://whistleblowersblog.org/corporate-whistleblowers/dodd-frankwhistleblowers/dodd-frank-act-programs-have-awarded-over-2-billion-towhistleblowers/ (last visited Nov. 7, 2025).
7. Singh, Santosh, 3 Sentenced to Life in Satyendra Dubey Murder Case, Indian Express (Mar. 27, 2010), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/crime/3-sentenced-to-life-in-satyendra-dubey-murder-case/.
8. Whistle Blowers Protection Act, Act No. 17 of 2014, § 1 et seq. (India) (May 9, 2014).
9. Harmanpreet Kaur, Legal Protections for Whistleblowers in India: A Critical Evaluation of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, 2 Indian Journal for Research in Law & Management 7 (June 2025).
10. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Ayush Joshi, How India’s Corporate Whistleblowers Face Retaliation and Get No Protection from a Law Govt Keeps Dormant, Janata Weekly (May 25, 2025), https://janataweekly.org/howindias-corporate-whistleblowers-face-retaliation-and-get-no-protection-from-a-law-govt-keeps-dormant/.
11. Nidhi Sharma, Amendment to whistleblower protection law sparks outrage among civil society activists, The Economic Times (May 16, 2015), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/amendment-to-whistleblower-protection-lawsparks-outrage-among-civil-society-activists/articleshow/47303193.cms (last visited Nov. 12, 2025).
12. Cass R. Sunstein, Behavioral Analysis of Law, Program in Law & Economics Working Paper No. 46 (University of Chicago Law School, 1997).