(a) Whistle-blower, who reports corruption and illegal activities, wrongdoing and misconduct to the concerned authorities, runs the risk of being exposed to grave danger, physical harm and victimization by the vested interests, accused persons and his team. What policy measures would you suggest to strengthen protection mechanism to safeguard the whistle-blower? (b) In contemporary world, corporate sector’s contribution in generating wealth and employment is increasing. In doing so, they are bringing in unprecedented onslaught on the climate, environmental sustainability and living conditions of human beings. In this background, do you find that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is efficient and sufficient enough to fulfill the social roles and responsibilities needed in the corporate world for which the CSR is mandated? Critically examine.

(a) Strengthening whistle-blower protection

• Operationalise and strengthen the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, with time-bound inquiry.
• Guaranteed confidentiality or anonymity of identity and secure reporting channels.
• Legal safeguards against victimisation — reinstatement, bar on punitive transfer, penalty for reprisals.
• An empowered independent authority (CVC/Lokpal) backed by the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
• Speedy, watertight investigation and, where apt, incentives to sustain morale.

(b) Is CSR sufficient?

Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, mandating 2% of average net profit, CSR has mobilised significant funds. Yet it is not sufficient by itself. It often treats symptoms rather than the harm caused by the same firms; spending can be tokenistic, urban-clustered and reputation-driven; and it cannot offset the structural externalities firms impose on climate and labour. Genuine responsibility requires internalising environmental costs, ESG compliance and the triple bottom line — people, planet, profit. CSR must therefore complement, not substitute for, ethical business conduct.