Poor Governance Became a Norm at NIPER Mohali

Under the chairmanship of Dr. Girish Sahni, former Director General of CSIR, the 79th meeting of the Board of Governors of NIPER Mohali was held on March 22, 2023. The minutes of that meeting, if read carefully, do not merely raise questions—they expose a troubling pattern of administrative confusion, questionable priorities, and a casual disregard for institutional sustainability.

At the heart of the meeting was a decision that stunned many within academic and administrative circles: the Board approved the registration of not one, but two separate entities under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. The first was the Centre for Pharmaceutical Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CPIE), and the second a proposed “Centre of Excellence for Drug Discovery and Drug Development.” Both were to be established as independent, not-for-profit companies.

The Institute justified this move by arguing that CPIE would focus on incubation and innovation strictly within NIPER Mohali, while the proposed Centre of Excellence would work alongside the Department of Pharmaceuticals to implement national programs in a BIRAC-like model. Since the objectives were described as “distinct,” the Board concluded that two separate Section 8 companies were necessary.

On paper, the logic sounds tidy. In practice, it borders on administrative fantasy.

NIPER Mohali itself is a publicly funded institution that has struggled to achieve financial self-sufficiency even after more than three decades of existence. If the parent body depends heavily on government support to keep its own lights on, how does it realistically expect to sustain two independent, non-profit corporate entities alongside it?

Section 8 companies, by definition, are not meant to generate profit. They require independent boards, statutory compliance, regular filings, audits, income tax returns, and ongoing regulatory reporting. Each of these comes with administrative costs, staffing requirements, and recurring financial obligations. Far from strengthening the Institute, this decision risks creating two more “white elephants”—expensive, underperforming structures that drain resources rather than deliver results.

The Institute already offers cautionary tales in the form of earlier centers such as the National Bioavailability Centre and the National Toxicology Centre, which failed to evolve into vibrant, self-sustaining hubs. During my tenure as Director, even making the Technology Development Centre for Dosage Formulation functional required extraordinary effort—and it was done within the Institute’s existing framework, not by floating a new corporate entity.

If the Department of Biotechnology could create BIRAC as a single, well-funded, not-for-profit company at the national level, why was a similar centralized approach not considered under the Department of Pharmaceuticals? Instead, the Board permitted the creation of two separate entities at an Institute that itself relies on government “crutches” for survival.

What makes this decision more puzzling is the silence of key officials in the room. The then Joint Secretary, Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, was present during these deliberations. The minutes, however, record no objection, no caution, and no note of concern—despite the obvious reality that bodies like BIRAC survive on funding running into crores, while NIPER Mohali continues to seek funds for its own basic functioning.

Administrative inconsistency surfaced again under Agenda Item 79.4, which dealt with the recruitment of “Young Professionals.” The Institute informed the Board that such hiring would be on a “need basis” across core operational areas such as Engineering, Finance and Accounts, Stores and Purchase, Legal Cell, Medical Devices, and even academic functions.

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of institutional governance. Young Professionals, as used in IITs and other premier institutions, are typically engaged for project-based, temporary, or scheme-specific roles. Core administrative and academic functions, however, require permanent, accountable staff. Running an Institute on short-term appointees raises a simple but critical question: who ensures continuity, institutional memory, and long-term accountability?

The contradictions did not end there.

In the matter of service benefits for Sh. K. S. Saini, Ex-Stenographer-B, the Institute sought multiple legal opinions from empanelled counsels. When those opinions diverged, the Board escalated the issue to the Additional Solicitor General of India. In the same breath, the Board spoke of the government’s ideology of “minimizing litigation.” The irony is difficult to miss: three legal opinions for a single service matter, yet a stated commitment to reducing legal disputes.

More troubling was the role played by the Secretary at the meeting. The person asked to read out “approved/partly approved charges” was Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel, an official who had earlier been suspended by me for acts of omission and commission. Without the completion of a formal inquiry, he was reinstated to perform statutory functions as Registrar.

The language of the minutes itself raises red flags. The use of the term “approved/partly approved charges,” instead of “proved/partly proved,” suggests a process where charges were administratively sanctioned rather than legally established—particularly in the case of Dr. A. S. Sandhu, who had served as Registrar during my tenure.

The Board went on to impose a penalty of ₹6.5 lakh on Dr. Sandhu, ordering recovery from his gratuity and reducing his pension by 10 percent. Not a single one of the twelve Board members recorded a formal objection.

Yet, this collective decision did not withstand judicial scrutiny. The High Court intervened, rejected the Institute’s action, and the recovered amount had to be returned—exposing the legal fragility of the Board’s stance.

The composition of the Board itself added to the controversy. The Director, Prof. Dulal Panda, was appointed in the absence of a duly constituted Board of Governors, a move I have challenged in the High Court. The DCGI was absent and represented by a deputy. The Secretary of Technical Education, Punjab, was also absent, represented instead by a Deputy Director. Even the Officiating Registrar was a previously suspended official.

Taken together, these are not isolated lapses. They form a pattern.

When governance becomes a series of procedural shortcuts, financial overreach, and administrative contradictions, institutions meant to serve national interests risk losing both credibility and purpose. NIPER Mohali was envisioned as a premier center of pharmaceutical education and research. What the 79th Board meeting reflects instead is an alarming drift toward bureaucratic experimentation without institutional grounding.

If corrective steps are not taken, the real cost will not be counted merely in wasted funds or court cases—but in the erosion of trust in one of the country’s most important academic and scientific institutions.