Tuesday, 31 May 2016

How India punishes those who expose corruption

Dinesh C Sharma
DINESH C SHARMA
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is normally used in a lighter vein to refer to politicians who shoot from their mouth. But for a veterinary scientist-turned-whistle-blower, FMD is not a matter of joke.
He is being harassed for blowing the whistle on a massive scam relating to supply of substandard FMD vaccines throughout the country by unscrupulous manufactures. Not just this, he has been slapped with a Rs 102 crore defamation suit by one of them – Indian Immunologicals Limited (IIL).
What is worse is both the vaccine manufacturer as well as the whistle-blower work under the same government entity - Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. IIL is an establishment of the National Dairy Development Board and the whistle-blower worked in the National Institute of Animal Health, Baghpat, where he found the FMD vaccines to be of sub-standard quality.
The defamation suit, therefore, clearly shows that the government department of dairying is punishing the whistle-blower using IIL, instead of protecting him.
This is not the first time that whistleblower scientist, BR Singh, is being targeted. Every time he smelt a rat in farm research stations where he worked and tried to bring it to the notice of the parent department in the ministry of agriculture, he was punished.
In the span of past ten years, he has been shunted to research centres literally all over the country – Hisar, Bikaner, Port Blair, Jharnapani (Nagaland), Baghpat and Izatnagar. It is rare for a scientist to be shunted from one lab to another like this.
The FMD case is serious as it involves health of millions of cattle, who are vaccinated at government cost, and vaccine failures have led to disease outbreaks in the past two years killing thousands of cattle.
The test reports, which are in public domain, show that the samples tested in September-October 2014 had failed quality criteria on several counts. Despite this another government lab in Bangalore, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, gave a go ahead to defaulting companies.
FMD is not the only case where a whistle-blower has been punished. Large scale corruption in National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Mohali, was exposed by a whistle-blower scientist in 2008, but the parent government body – Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) turned a blind eye, and got the scientist terminated from the institute. Now the very same charges have been mentioned in an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In another case, scientist who exposed filing of fake patent applications and missing samples of genetically modified (GM) crops in the Indian Agriculture Research Institute was punished, while those facing the charges have been promoted to higher posts.
This is a widespread malaise in Indian research institutions which is rarely talked about. We need to evolve a system where people can file complaints and they are investigated without any harm being done to complainants.
Such a system needs to be independent otherwise parent ministries tend to bury them, as evident in the case of FMD vaccines and NIPER.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

NIPER fails to make in National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) ranking

The rankings announced by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has brought cheer to  several Pharmacy Institutions in the country. However; NIPER failed to make entry in the list, it has also raised concerns over the quality of education at NIPER. 

Academicians are using the findings of the survey to criticize the deteriorating academic atmosphere at NIPER, which is intensified by rampant corruption in the top level and is encouraged by the  bureaucracy. 


Corruption is rooted into the academic set up, which starts from the selection of director to entry level staff.Several court cases are pending and a case of  corruption has been registered by CBI against officials of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER) CBI sources  said eight officials of the Mohali-based autonomous institute under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, including present officiating Director, former Director and other senior officials have been named by the agency in the FIR.



Rank Institution State Score

Manipal College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences-Manipal

1 MANIPAL  Karnataka  77.87

University Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences-Chandigarh

2 CHANDIGARH  Chandigarh  77.1

Jamia Hamdard

3 NEW DELHI  Delhi  71.38

Poona College Of Pharmacy, Erandwane, Pune-Pune

4 PUNE  Maharashtra  70.92

Institute Of Pharmacy, Nirma University

5 Ahmedabad  Gujarat  69.76

Bombay College Of Pharmacy-Mumbai

6 MUMBAI  Maharashtra  69.48

Birla Institute Of Technology

7 RANCHI  Jharkhand  67

Amrita School Of Pharmacy

8 KOCHI  Kerala  66.09

Jss College Of Pharmacy

9 OOTACAMUND  Tamil Nadu  63.29

Jss College Of Pharmacy

10 MYSORE  Karnataka  63.21

Psg College Of Pharmacy

11 COIMBATORE  Tamil Nadu  61.3

L. M. College Of Pharmacy

12 AHMEDABAD  Gujarat  60.56

Al Ameen College Of Pharmacy

13 BANGALORE  Karnataka  59.67

R. C. Patel Institute Of Pharmaceutical Education & Research

14 SHIRPUR  Maharashtra  57.25

Taradevi Rampure Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 

15 GULBARGA  Karnataka  56.31

University College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences

16 WARANGAL  Telangana  56.17

Chitkara College Of Pharmacy,-Rajpura

17 RAJPURA  Punjab  56.11

N.G.S.M.Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences-Mangalore

18 MANGALORE  Karnataka  55.26

School Of Pharmacy-Solan

19 SOLAN  Himachal Pradesh  55.17

Raghavendra Institute Of Pharmaceuatical Education & Research 
20 ANANTAPUR  Andhra Pradesh  55.05

S.E.T's College Of Pharmacy

21 DHARWAD  Karnataka  54.96

University Institute Of Pharmacy

22 RAIPUR  Chhattisgarh  54.83

Goa College Of Pharmacy-Panaji

23 PANAJI  Goa  54.46

Institute Of Pharmaceutical Education And Research

24 SHIRPUR  Maharashtra  54.18

Bharati Vidyapeeth College Of Pharmacy, Kolhapur-Kolhapur

25 KOLHAPUR  Maharashtra  53.97

Sree Siddaganga College Of Pharmacy

26 TUMKUR  Karnataka  53.94

Periyar College Of Pharmaceuitcal Sciences-Tiruchirappalli

27 TIRUCHIRAPPALLI  Tamil Nadu  53.17

Mvp Samaj`s College Of Pharmacy, Nashik-Nashik

28 NASHIK  Maharashtra  53.16

Raj Kumar Goel Institute Of Technology (Pharmacy)

29 GHAZIABAD  Uttar Pradesh  52.75

Sinhgad Institute Of Pharmacy-Pune

30 PUNE  Maharashtra  52.74

Smt. Slt Institute Of Phrmaceutical Sciences

31 BILASPUR  Chhattisgarh  52.37

Nandha College Of Pharmacy-Erode

32 ERODE  Tamil Nadu  52.35

Aissms College Of Pharmacy

33 PUNE  Maharashtra  52.17

A.R.College Of Pharmacy & G.H.Patel Institute Of Pharmacy

34 ANAND  Gujarat  52.11

Vinyaka Mission`s College Of Pharmacy-Kondappanaikenpatty
35 KONDAPPANAIKENPATTY  Tamil Nadu  51.43

Department Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dibrugarh University
36 DIBRUGARH  Assam  51.41

Maliba Pharmacy College

37 TARSADI  Gujarat  51.19

N.E.T Pharmacy College.

38 RAICHUR  Karnataka  50.54

Shri Vishnu College Of Pharmacy-Bhimavaram

39 BHIMAVARAM  Andhra Pradesh  50.36

Shri G.S. Institute Of Tech. & Science, Indore (M.P.)

40 INDORE  Madhya Pradesh  50.22

Mallige College Of Pharmacy

41 BANGALORE  Karnataka  49.93

Acharya & B M Reddy College Of Pharmacy-Bangalore

42 BANGALORE  Karnataka  49.92

Maratha Mandal`s College Of Pharmacy-Belgaum

43 BELGAUM  Karnataka  49.83

B. R. Nahata College Of Pharmacy-Mandsaur

44 MANDSAUR  Madhya Pradesh  49.67

J.K.K.Nattraja College Of Pharmacy

45 KOMARAPALAYAM  Tamil Nadu  49.56

Sinhgad College Of Pharmacy

46 PUNE  Maharashtra  48.89

Shree Dhanvantary Pharmacy College-Surat

47 SURAT  Gujarat  48.81

Kle College Of Pharmacy-Bangalore

48 BANGALORE  Karnataka  48.69

Seemanta Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences

49 BARIPADA  Odisha  48.15

College Of Pharmacy, Madras Medical College

50 CHENNAI  Tamil Nadu  48

Tuesday, 29 March 2016

Decision Reserved

CWP-12264-2015     
DR.PARIKSHIT BANSAL V/S DR. K. K .BHUTANI & OTHERS     
RESERVED

Reserved decision is a legal term. After the hearing of a trial or the argument of a motion a judge might not immediately deliver a decision, but instead take time to review evidence and the law and deliver a decision at a later time, usually in a written form.

It is a more thought out decision compared to ex tempore where a judge hands down a decision of a case soon or right after a hearing.