The decision of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, to drag its long-running dispute with Dr. Neeraj Kumar to the Supreme Court has raised troubling questions—not just about administrative judgment, but about the reckless use of public money to pursue what increasingly appears to be a personal vendetta.
NIPER Mohali has filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) before the Supreme Court, challenging the final judgment dated November 6, 2025, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in favour of Dr. Neeraj Kumar. The case was listed for hearing on December 19, 2025, with final arguments scheduled for February 19, 2026.
What stands out immediately is the scale of legal firepower deployed by the institute. NIPER Mohali was represented by five lawyers, including senior advocate Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, who also serves as an Additional Solicitor General of India. Dr. Neeraj Kumar, by contrast, appeared as a caveator-in-person.
During the hearing, counsel for NIPER informed the Supreme Court that the High Court’s order had already been complied with—under the “threat of contempt.” The institute reinstated Dr. Neeraj Kumar and paid him ₹10 lakh as costs, as directed by the Division Bench in contempt proceedings (COCP-5922-2025).
Notably, the Supreme Court did not order Dr. Neeraj Kumar to refund the ₹10 lakh, recognising that the appeal itself is yet to be finally adjudicated.
The appeal by NIPER Mohali does not exist in isolation. Dr. Neeraj Kumar had earlier approached the Supreme Court through SLP No. 11063 of 2023 against PJP Singh Waraich, who was reinstated as Registrar of NIPER Mohali. That petition was dismissed.
The timing and persistence of the present appeal have therefore invited a serious question: is this litigation driven by institutional necessity—or by personal animosity?
The optics are troubling. Lakhs of rupees of public funds are being spent on prolonged litigation, senior advocates, and repeated appeals—at a time when the High Court has already delivered a scathing verdict against NIPER’s actions and exposed serious procedural and ethical lapses.
The High Court judgment dated November 6, 2025, runs through years of litigation arising from Dr. Neeraj Kumar’s removal—an ordeal that spanned over 12 years. In doing so, the Division Bench repeatedly identified one individual as central to the controversy: Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal.
Dr. Bansal’s name appears no fewer than 15 times in the judgment, linked to complaints, disciplinary proceedings, and the framing of charges against Dr. Neeraj Kumar.
The court records reveal:
- Objections raised by Dr. Neeraj Kumar to Dr. Bansal’s participation in the Selection Committee (Para 12).
- Complaints filed by Dr. Bansal that ultimately triggered disciplinary action (Paras 21–24).
- Findings that several complaints—including those attributed to Dr. Bansal—had no factual basis (Para 21).
- Charges framed solely on Dr. Bansal’s complaints, including allegations of harassment and threats (Paras 24–28).
In one of its most stinging observations, the court noted its shock that Dr. Neeraj Kumar was held guilty even after the complainant had exonerated him and instead accused Dr. Bansal (Para 33(iv)(A)).
The bench further observed that for multiple charges, the sole basis of implication was Dr. Bansal, whose inclusion in institutional processes had itself been objected to by the appellant (Para 33(iv)(C)).
Yet, despite the High Court’s detailed findings and repeated references, Dr. Arvind Kumar Bansal continues in the system—without punishment, penalty, or expulsion.
Instead of recovering the ₹10 lakh cost from those responsible for initiating wrongful proceedings, NIPER Mohali appears more concerned with reclaiming the amount from Dr. Neeraj Kumar, who fought for over a decade to prove his innocence.
This selective pursuit of accountability raises uncomfortable questions about governance within an Institute of National Importance.
The appeal is now listed for final hearing on February 19, 2026. Until then, the public is entitled to ask: Should taxpayer money be spent to settle personal scores? Should institutions double down on discredited actions rather than introspect and reform?
Justice is not merely about winning cases—it is about learning from mistakes, fixing systems, and holding the right people accountable.
Until that happens, the shadow over NIPER Mohali will remain.
May the truth prevail.
