Whistleblowing and Confidentiality Agreements and Indian Corporate Law

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

In the month of April 2015, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a settlement order for a case including an organization that obliged its representatives to consent to a confidentiality agreement when they were met in interior examinations for affirmations of potential infringement of government securities laws. The SEC decried the use of such confidentiality agreements as influencing against laws that required whistleblower protections, and imposed a fine on the company in addition to requiring it to amend its confidentiality agreement by removing such restrictions on its employees.

The case involved KBR, Ind., a company having headquarters in Houston. As a part of its compliance programwhen KBR received complaints, it would conduct internal investigations and interview employees. During such a process, employees were required to sign a confidentiality agreement that barred them from discussing the interview and its subject matter without the prior authorization of its law department. Although there was no evidence of KBR in fact preventing any employee from disclosing details to legal authorities or of KBR taking any action to enforce the confidentiality agreement, the SEC nevertheless found that the language of the confidentiality agreement by itself undermines the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 21F-17. In a final settlement with the SEC, KBR agreed to pay a sum of $130,000 as a penalty to settle and revise its confidentiality agreements.

Despite the fact that this case includes an examination of the legitimate and contractual procurements as relevant in the US, the general tenor of SEC’s methodology would hold well in the Indian setting too. Provision 49 of the listing agreement has definite procurements obliging listed companies to set up whistleblowing arrangements and to give satisfactory insurance to informants against exploitation. The execution of the whistleblowing strategy falls inside thetransmit of the review panel, for which its administrator has essential obligation. Despite the fact that Clause 49 does not explicitly manage issues relating to confidentiality agreements, any serious limitations in that identifying with conceivable reporting of asserted infringement to legislative offices or the controllers could fall possibly afoul of such arrangements.

While Clause 49 primarily focuses on internal reporting of alleged violations, the Companies Act, 2013 in section 143(12) imposes a positive duty on auditors of accompany to report to the Central Government when in the course of performance of their duties they discover matters involving a potential offence of fraud. Any terms of the engagement between the company and its auditors (including confidentiality obligations) will be subject to this external reporting requirement.

If there is a KBR-like confidentiality situation in India and the internal whistleblowing policy of a company is rendered nugatory and if a member of the audit committee or a director is engaged in nullifying the effect of a company’s whistleblowing policy andwhat is the relief available to an employee apart from intimating the audit committee; the answer lies in Section 206-212 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The most obvious common thread that runs through these provisions is providing a safe route of communication which ensures anonymity between the whistleblower and the RoC/Central Government/SFIO. Thus, one can see that if a KBR-like situation arises in India, there is a safeguard provided for in the Indian Companies Act. This situation also revives an ancient principle of statutory law over-riding provisions of a non-disclosure agreement.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -