Come April 22, 2025, Dr. Dulal Panda, Director of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, has been directed to appear in person before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The directive comes in a long-drawn legal battle that’s symptomatic of the bureaucratic rot plaguing one of India’s premier scientific institutes.
On April 3, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi Mehta, while hearing Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 1025 of 2025 filed by Mohd. Shahid Khan and others took serious note of NIPER’s continued defiance in implementing a judicial order that dates back nearly seven years. The Bench also condoned a 96-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the appellants had exhausted all other remedies.
The background is telling. In 2014, the then Officiating Director, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Bhutani, chose to withhold the implementation of a Board of Governors’ decision dated March 29, 2012. That decision, favorable to the petitioners, was effectively nullified through an internal order dated February 11, 2014. When challenged, a Single Judge of the High Court had set aside Bhutani’s order in 2018, effectively reinstating the Board’s decision. But—critically—the judgment did not include an explicit directive (mandamus) compelling NIPER to act.
Seizing on this technicality, the Institute simply chose to do nothing. The appellants tried again with a fresh petition, only to be told that the absence of a specific directive meant no implementation was necessary. An application for clarification was filed and later withdrawn—possibly in frustration.
Now, the Division Bench has stepped in firmly, observing that a decision validly passed by the Board cannot be arbitrarily withheld by an executive functionary. It invoked Article 215 of the Constitution—empowering the High Court to punish for contempt—and demanded an explanation from NIPER’s current Director. His presence is now mandatory on the next hearing date, April 22.
Meanwhile, institutional accountability at NIPER appears to be in shambles. Dr. Raghuram Rao Akkinepally, a former official, informed the Court about his attempt to establish an internal Rapid Grievance Redressal Committee (RGRC) comprising respected members from institutions like Panjab University and IISER. The initiative could have saved the Institute countless courtroom hours and legal expenses.
But the RGRC was swiftly dismantled, thanks to the interventions of then Board Chairman Dr. V.M. Katoch and Joint Secretary Rajneesh Tingal from the Department of Pharmaceuticals. With that, any internal forum for resolving disputes was buried.
The fallout? Employees have no option but to turn to the judiciary for every minor and major issue. On April 3 alone, the High Court listed not just Mohd. Shahid Khan’s case, but also that of Mrs. Nisha Sharma and others, is yet another group of aggrieved staffers. Courtrooms, it seems, have replaced classrooms and labs for NIPER Mohali’s employees.
It raises an uncomfortable question: Has NIPER Mohali turned into a litigation hub because the administrative leadership thrives on creating bottlenecks rather than resolving them?
The upcoming hearing will be a test—not just of institutional memory or legal procedure—but of whether public science institutions can still be held accountable in a system where bureaucratic impunity too often gets the last word.
