Every informer can not automatically be said to be a bonafide "whistle blower".
In our opinion, the appellant without any justification assumed the role of vigilante. We do not find that the submissions made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the appellant was merely seeking publicity are without any substance. The newspaper reports as well as the other publicity undoubtedly created a great deal of panic among the local population as well as throughout the State of Gujarat. Every informer can not automatically be said to be a bonafide "whistle blower". A "whistle blower" would be a person who possesses the qualities of a crusader. His honesty, integrity and motivation should leave little or no room for doubt. It is not enough that such person is from the same organization and privy to some information, not available to the general public. The primary motivation for the action of a person to be called a "whistle blower" should be to cleanse an organization. It should not be incidental or byproduct for an action taken for some ulterior or selfish motive.
Supreme Court of India
Manoj H.Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 April, 2013
http://www.lawweb.in/2013/08/every-informer-can-not-automatically-be.html (http://www.lawweb.in/2013/08/every-informer-can-not-automatically-be.html)