In theory, the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a powerful tool to promote transparency and accountability in public institutions. But what happens when this instrument of good governance is weaponised for personal vendetta and institutional sabotage? My experience at the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, illustrates how RTIs can be misused with the apparent complicity of those within the system.
The trigger to this saga begins with Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma, a former Consultant (Legal) at NIPER Mohali, who was appointed in June 2011. For several years, his services were routinely extended without proper scrutiny of the actual value he brought to the Institute. As per the NIPER guidelines, the tenure of a consultant is not permitted beyond five years. Ironically, during his tenure, the number of legal disputes involving NIPER reached unprecedented levels, despite the presence of a qualified in-house lawyer already serving as Section Officer (Administration & Legal) and a panel of 4–5 external legal experts.
In an institution comprising around 150 members, retaining two lawyers full-time seemed excessive and financially wasteful. Believing that funds used on avoidable litigation could better serve the Institute’s research priorities, I decided not to renew Mr. Sharma’s contract as he already served for six years by then. This, it appears, did not sit well with him—or with those who stood to gain from his continued appointment.
Shortly after his disengagement, Mr. Sharma began filing multiple RTI applications seeking detailed personal and professional information about me, including documents related to my appointment and administrative processes followed. Several of these queries extended into personal domains, clearly violating the privacy boundaries outlined in the RTI Act.
To my dismay, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided these personal documents—ostensibly under pressure or influence from Mr. PJP Singh Waraich, then Registrar of the Institute. The intention was clearly not transparency but harassment, with the ultimate aim of dragging me into legal complications.
The pattern didn’t end with me. A similar RTI-driven campaign later targeted Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel, Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts). The details are publicly accessible through the Central Information Commission (CIC) under file number CIC/NIPER/A/2024/619032. The applicant: Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel himself, who was now seeking to understand what complaints or RTI-based snooping had been carried out in his name.
Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Assistant Registrar (Establishment) and CPIO, responded vaguely:
- Complaints routed through the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) had no recorded outcomes, so information was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
- RTI queries about Mr. Chandel were allegedly scattered across different files, and retrieving them would “disproportionately divert resources,” citing Section 7(9).
- Information on photocopy charges would be provided later, contingent on payment.
Mr. Chandel, dissatisfied with the evasive replies, filed a First Appeal on October 13, 2023. When this was also brushed aside—upholding the original denial—he moved to the Central Information Commission.
The CIC, in its order dated August 30, 2024, pulled up the Institute. It ruled that the CPIO’s denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) was erroneous and directed a revised reply. The Commission also questioned the absence of the CPIO during the hearing, demanding an explanation.
What followed raised serious questions about internal collusion. Information gathered via RTI was later used to file a writ petition (CWP-28606 of 2023) against Mr. Chandel’s appointment. The RTI was never about public interest—it was a calculated strategy to gather ammunition for legal warfare. It’s no coincidence that this approach mirrors the earlier pattern employed by Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma against me.
Had Sharma filed a writ petition against my appointment, it could have exposed his own questionable tenure. Instead, he resorted to relentless RTI harassment, possibly under the protective umbrella of Registrar PJP Singh Waraich, who repeatedly pushed for renewal of Sharma’s contract.
My refusal to bend on several issues cost me dearly. I opposed:
- The renewal of Mr. Sharma’s contract.
- The irregular absorption of Ms. Bhuwan Gautam.
- Non-payment of salaries to employees working in Delhi under the Department of Pharmaceuticals’ banner.
- The suspension of Mr. Jitender Kumar Chandel.
- The protection of Mr. PJP Singh Waraich despite serious procedural lapses.
Instead of being commended for prioritising institutional integrity and research interests, I became a target. My firm stance drew the ire of Dr. V.M. Katoch, Chairman of the Board of Governors, and Mr. Rajneesh Tingal, Joint Secretary. Their response? My removal.
The larger question that remains unanswered is this: will any action be taken against those responsible for the misuse of RTI machinery and subversion of institutional process, particularly Mr. Manoj Tiwari and Mr. PJP Singh Waraich?
The RTI Act was never intended to become a tool for bureaucratic vengeance. Unless such misuse is checked, institutions like NIPER risk being crippled not by external forces, but by the rot within.
