When the 84th Meeting of the Board of Governors of NIPER S.A.S. Nagar was held on June 7, 2024, one of the agenda items—84.2—was about showcasing the Institute’s achievements and building stronger collaborations with national and international academia and industry. On paper, it sounded promising. In reality, it exposed a deeper malaise.
A Board member suggested the Institute needed a concrete media plan to project its accomplishments. Dr. Meenakshi Sharma added that NIPER’s completed and ongoing drug discovery and development programmes should be prominently visible in the media. The irony was inescapable: three decades after its establishment as a premier national institute, NIPER was still debating how to project its achievements.
Today, if one searches for NIPER online, the headlines are not about path-breaking research or pharmaceutical innovation. Instead, they revolve around controversies: the setting aside of a Registrar’s appointment; expulsions of senior faculty members, including Dr. Nilanjan Roy, Dr. Parikshit Bansal, and Dr. Neeraj Kumar; the absence of a regular Director for more than seven years; the prolonged continuation of Dr. K.K. Bhutani as Officiating Director; expulsions of Col. Sanjeev Taggar and Capt. Kshitij Sharma; a Director’s car being burnt by agitating students; a CBI FIR against the Director, senior faculty and Registrar; allegations of fake certification for car registration; suspensions of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar; and repeated court battles, including my own suspension as Director—twice—both set aside by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Add to this the Institute’s fall in the NIRF Pharmacy rankings from No. 1 to No. 9 and the fact that more than one-third of employees have approached courts. If reputation is built on perception, NIPER’s public image is a casualty of its own governance failures.
A Culture of Postponement
The minutes of the meeting reflect not decisiveness but deferral. Consider Agenda Item 83.2.2 regarding enhancement of maternity leave for female Ph.D. scholars from 90 to 180 days—already the norm in Central Government institutions. Instead of aligning with established government policy, the matter was deferred to the NIPER Council for a “uniform policy” across all NIPERs.
This is emblematic of the Institute’s functioning. Even routine matters are pushed from clerical desks to the Director, from the Director to the Board, and from the Board to the Apex Council—ensuring delay becomes permanent.
Similarly, the Personal Promotion Scheme for non-teaching employees, approved as far back as March 23, 2014, continues to linger in procedural limbo. Committees are formed, policies drafted, and approvals awaited from the Nodal Ministry—while employees remain in uncertainty.
Governance or One-Man Commentary?
From the minutes, it appears that Shri Awadhesh Kumar Choudhary, Senior Economic Advisor and Acting Joint Secretary in the Department of Pharmaceuticals, was the only member actively commenting on nearly every agenda item. Whether it was media visibility, maternity leave, APAR formats, funding mechanisms, MoUs, retirement gratuity, Centres of Excellence, or reemployment of faculty after superannuation—his observations dominated the discussion.
The impression created is troubling: were other Board members merely present to complete quorum? Institutional governance requires collective deliberation, not passive attendance.
Consultancy Funds: A Statutory Breach?
Perhaps the most alarming decision was under Agenda Item 84.3.3. The Board endorsed the creation of a COMMON FUND/CONSULTANCY CONTINGENCY FUND by allocating 5% of the Institute’s share from consultancy projects from FY 2023–24 onwards. This fund would be exclusively accessible to the Director, who would allocate it at his discretion.
This decision contravenes the NIPER Act and Statutes. Consultancy Rules are part of the Statutes and cannot be altered by Board or committee resolutions alone. It is surprising that the Registrar, as Secretary to the Board, did not clarify the statutory position. Equally puzzling is how detailed scrutiny was applied to minor agenda items while a potentially unlawful financial restructuring passed without objection.
If funds are being diverted at the Director’s discretion, transparency demands answers: Who has received allocations? On what basis? What measurable outcomes have resulted?
Financial Confusion and Procedural Gaps
On Agenda Item 84.4, the Finance Committee recommended the creation of separate Trusts for managing Gratuity Funds and Earned Leave Encashment. Instead of acting, the Board sought comparative studies and maintained the status quo. This raises a fundamental question: did the Finance Committee conduct adequate groundwork, or was the rationale poorly explained by the Registrar, who sits on both the Finance Committee and the Board?
Further, under Agenda Item 84.6, it was pointed out that the Institute had failed to utilize the allocated Grants-in-Aid fully. Under the new funding procedure, the Government releases the next installment only after 75% utilization. NIPER’s inability to spend allocated funds in 2022–23 was attributed to “procedural difficulties”—an admission that reflects either administrative incompetence or lack of preparedness.
Neglect of Basic Healthcare Staffing
Even more disconcerting is the failure to recruit two Medical Officers and four paramedical staff for the Institute dispensary—posts approved by the Board in 2013. More than a decade later, the positions are deemed “abolished,” and recruitment will begin only after the revival of posts.
Since 2011, Mr. PJP Singh Waraich has served as Registrar. From 2013 to 2024, why were these critical healthcare posts not filled? Who bears accountability for such neglect? The Registrar’s role is to guide both the Director and the Board on administrative and statutory matters. Failure in this duty has tangible consequences for staff and students alike.
Institutions decline not overnight but through accumulated indecision, procedural opacity, and absence of accountability. NIPER was envisioned as a centre of pharmaceutical excellence. Instead, it risks being remembered for administrative turbulence.
The June 7 meeting did not merely reveal governance lapses—it mirrored an institutional culture where postponement substitutes policy, discretion overrides statute, and accountability is perpetually deferred.
Unless structural reforms, statutory compliance, and transparent governance are restored, no media strategy—however sophisticated—can salvage the Institute’s reputation. Excellence cannot be advertised into existence; it must be administered into reality.
