When I took charge as Director of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, my immediate concern was understanding what had gone wrong in an institute once envisioned as a beacon of excellence in pharmaceutical research. What I discovered was disturbing—a pattern of procedural violations, administrative neglect, and entrenched fiefdoms that had crippled the institute’s growth.
At the heart of the malaise was an influential trio: Dr. V. M. Katoch, Chairman of the Board of Governors (BoG); Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals; and the Registrar, whose services were later terminated by court order. Together, they shaped a culture of non-accountability and institutional decay that subverted both the NIPER Act and the spirit of academic autonomy.
A review of past Board meetings revealed that even the highest decision-making body was operating outside the law. Representatives without any statutory authorization were allowed to attend and participate in BoG meetings. For example, Mr. Mohanbir Singh Sidhu attended as a representative of the Secretary, Technical Education, Punjab; Mr. Ajay Sharma represented the President of the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India; and Mr. Ashok K. Madan attended as the representative of the Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association—all without any legal sanction under the NIPER Act.
Equally shocking was the prolonged absence of stable leadership. For years, the institute was run by officiating or acting directors. Dr. K. K. Bhutani held the post of Officiating Director for longer than the five-year term of a regular director. Later, Dr. U. S. N. Murthy—already serving as Director of NIPER Guwahati, 2,300 kilometers away—was given additional charge of NIPER Mohali. How could effective governance or institutional focus be expected under such circumstances?
The problem extended to the Board itself. Dr. Anil K. Gupta, of IIM-Ahmedabad, skipped multiple Board meetings despite confirming attendance. The Board had resolved that members missing three consecutive meetings should be replaced—but Dr. Gupta was spared, perhaps due to his association with committees involving Dr. Katoch.
Industry leaders Sudhir Mehta (Torrent Pharmaceuticals) and Satish Reddy (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories) expressed their inability to attend Board meetings of NIPER Mohali. Perhaps they might have realized from the agenda sent to them that attending such meetings will be a futile exercise, as there was no concrete plan or productive agenda.
Equally disturbing was the inaction of Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, the Joint Secretary, who represented the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The NIPER Act requires the nomination of specific members such as representatives from PGI or AIIMS, yet these positions remained vacant for the entire tenure of the Board. The minutes even recorded that the Ministry had “taken up the matter,” but no action followed for three years. Such dereliction cannot be brushed aside as bureaucratic delay—it was administrative apathy that weakened statutory functioning.
It took Dr. G. N. Singh, then DCGI, to remind the Board of its true purpose. During the 68th BoG meeting, he pointed out that the agenda consisted only of routine administrative matters, ignoring the institute’s academic and research mandate. He rightly insisted that the Board must focus on setting a 3–5 year roadmap for research and institutional growth.
The Board formally endorsed his view, yet, astonishingly, for two consecutive terms before this, no such vision document was ever prepared. An Institute of National Importance had been operating without a strategic plan—reduced to a bureaucratic outpost rather than a centre of innovation.
In that same 68th meeting, the Board unanimously resolved that only policy matters should come before it and that administrative issues should be handled by the Director under established rules. Yet, Chairman Dr. Katoch repeatedly overstepped his mandate, micro-managing day-to-day operations and shielding errant officials.
When the Registrar was suspended for multiple acts of omission and commission, Dr. Katoch intervened to protect him—an action contrary to both the BoG resolution and the NIPER Act. Such interference undermined institutional discipline and encouraged a culture of impunity.
Even the Board’s directives reflected confusion. Instead of formulating a long-term roadmap, it instructed that “all faculty members shall submit reports through the Dean on their academic, research, and administrative activities.” This was a blatant misinterpretation of what a roadmap means. As I remarked then, any matriculate could understand that seeking a roadmap does not mean collecting work reports. NIPER was meant to be a research powerhouse, not a bureaucratic reporting office.
Academic management had degenerated into personal fiefdoms. Departments existed in name only, often headed by a single faculty member. Dr. Saranjit Singh singlehandedly ran the Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis for years—no additional recruitment was made during his tenure. Likewise, Dr. U. C. Banerjee was allowed to head both the Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Pharmaceutical Technology (Biotechnology)—two entities with overlapping functions. Instead of fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, such concentration of authority stifled growth and accountability.
These are not isolated administrative lapses but symptoms of a deeper malaise—one where personal influence, bureaucratic neglect, and statutory violations combined to erode the credibility of an institute created to lead India’s pharmaceutical research ecosystem.
When I initiated corrective measures, resistance was immediate and institutional. My efforts were sidelined, decisions were subverted, and the vested interests that thrived on disorder struck back.
Today, NIPER stands at a crossroads. What was conceived as a national model for innovation and excellence has become a case study in how governance failure can cripple scientific potential.
If India truly aspires to lead the global pharmaceutical sector, it must begin by restoring integrity, transparency, and vision to its own institutions. NIPER deserves not just reform—but a rebirth.
