Banjot Kaur 
New Delhi: A day after The Wire reported on the suspension of International Institute for Population Sciences director, Professor K.S. James, the Union health ministry has made available a ‘brief note’ saying that ‘a fact finding committee’ had found certain irregularities on his part. And, hence an “investigation” had been ordered, pending the findings of which James was placed under suspension.
Titled, ‘Brief Note on Suspension of Prof James, Director and Senior Professor, International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS)’, the statement was put out ostensibly by the Union health ministry on July 29. The note is undated, unsigned and on paper which does not carry an official letterhead.
The note claims that the government fact finding committee found prima facie irregularities in 11 of 35 complaints it has purportedly received against James. “The irregularities were mainly regarding [the] lapses observed in certain appointments, recruitments of faculty, Reservation Roasters, Dead Stock registers, etc.(sic)”.
The note which was made available states that the fact finding committee was constituted on May 8, 2023, on the basis of the complaints received. However, it does not clarify over which time period the complaints were received or when the incidents mentioned in the complaints had occurred.
The Union health ministry’s ‘note’ on the suspension of Professor K.S. James, issued on July 29.
Data discomfort
Well before the ministry released this statement about alleged charges, unhappiness with James had been publicly expressed, it is reliably learnt from a source at the IIPS.
The highest decision making body at the IIPS is its general council. It has 22 members and the Union health minister is its president. The Union health ministry secretary is its vice president. In addition to several senior officials of the Union health ministry, it has IIPS director as one of its members. It also has two independent members, who have done extensive work on population sciences, but are not associated with the IIPS. The general council is supposed to meet annually at least, as per the by-laws.
A meeting of the general council was held in February this year. Of the more than 30 persons present in the meeting (which included people from the IIPS and the government) more than one told The Wire that Union health minister Mansukh Mandaviya questioned James and “spoke harshly to him about the anaemia data and asked if this was part of some western conspiracy.”
James stood his ground and continued to point to what the data was saying, the members said.
The Wire has reached out to the Union health ministry for comment on this. This report will be updated when the ministry responds.
On charges and complaints
A source in the know has told The Wire that IIPS never received a copy of the final report of the fact finding committee.
“We are not aware of what those 11 charges are,” the source said.
The source added that while the IIPS is an autonomous organisation of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the government “did not ask for any reply or explanation from the director before issuing an order regarding his suspension” on July 29.
The note has also not said what those 11 charges, found to be “true”, are. It has also not mentioned what the rest of the charges, which were ostensibly not found to be true, are.
The health ministry did send all the complaints to the director, and he was asked to give a reply to each paragraph. “This process started in April and we kept giving replies. We don’t know which replies were accepted by the ministry, on what grounds others were rejected,” the source said.
No IIPS official is ready to speak on record. The Wire‘s source also added that the director’s office also does not know who the complainants are.
One of the charges mentioned in the ministry’s note are alleged lapses in “certain appointments [and] recruitments of faculty” of the institution.
Now, as per by-laws of the institute, all faculty members’s posts come under ‘Group A’. The appointment for the Group-A posts are made by the executive council of the institute. Its chairperson is secretary to the Union health and family welfare ministry. The director is one of 12 members of the committee who, in hierarchy, is preceded by the two additional secretaries to the health ministry and the secretary.
“Appointments to Group A posts shall be made by [the] Executive Council subject to the provisions of Rule 3.2 (iii) of the Rules and Regulations of the Institute. Director, shall, however, issue appointment letters to persons appointed to Group A posts on behalf of the Executive Council,” the by-laws state.
For selection of a professor, the committee comprises the chairperson or his/her nominee, three professional persons outside the institute, one member of the executive council to be nominated by the chairperson (Union health ministry’s secretary), one SC/ST community representative and the director. Similarly for the posts of associate or assistant professors, committees are formed of similar composition except for the fact that here two outside members of the institute are part of the committee instead of three, and representatives of the department concerned are also included.
Certain non-academic posts also come under Group A, the appointments for which are done by the executive council. The director has the powers to appoint people for Group B and Group C posts, all of which are non-academic.
The note alleges that the director was “directly and indirectly responsible” for his alleged failure to exercise supervision in preventing the anomalies that the fact finding committee “had detected.”
It adds: “He also it seems (sic) failed to detect these irregularities promptly and take corrective action in a timely manner.”
The source quoted above questioned this stance of the government saying no single appointment or recruitment for any faculty member could be done by the director alone, as per rules and regulations which had to be adhered to (i.e., the by-laws).
While the unsigned note said that the special audit team had detected “irregularities”, it did not offer any details.
The note also said that since the director was holding an influential position, hence his suspension was necessary for a fair investigation.
The suspension order, issued on July 28, has intriguingly directed him to stay put in Mumbai, the headquarters of IIPS, for 90 days. This order was issued officially by the Ministry on July 28 on a letterhead and is signed by Amrit Lal Jangid, joint director in the statistics division of the Union health ministry.
It reads, “It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force, the headquarters of Prof K S James, director and senior professor, IIPS, Mumbai, should be Mumbai and Prof S K James, director and senior professor, IIPS, Mumbai shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the competent authority,”
The suspension order against IIPS head K.S. James, issued on July 28.
The note has, however, said James’s suspension should not be seen as a “punishment”.
“It is worth mentioning here that suspension is not a punishment but resorted to in specific circumstances to pave way for fair and free investigation. The suspension initially is for a period of 90 days or the completion of further investigation, whichever is earlier, which is revocable with the approval of the suspension revocation committee/review committee in the ministry,” the ministry’s note said.
IIPS director James was not available for comment.
Inconvenient data a flashpoint?
The IIPS is entrusted with the responsibility to prepare the National Family Health Surveys (NFHSs). The NFHS-5 data, which was released in two phases – did come out with some points which were not in the “expected” direction, or direction being hoped for, mainly anaemia, where the picture emerging was grim – besides, sanitation, cooking fuel etc.
Also read: ‘Unhappy With Data Sets,’ Modi Govt Suspends Director of Institute Which Prepares NFHS
The first phase data of NFHS-5 (released in two parts), which pertained to 17 states and Union territories was released in December 2020 when Harsh Vardhan was Union health minister. The second phase data, on the remaining states and Union territories, was released in November 2021 when Mandaviya took office after Harsh Vardhan was dropped.
The NFHS-5 had shown that anaemia had risen during 2019-21, as compared to the previous NFHS period, 2015-16.
“The ministry, as a matter of regular practice, did ask some questions on the anaemia data. We had replied. Moreover, since one set of data was already out, it was not possible even to think of not releasing the second phase,” the IIPS source, quoted earlier, said.
While controversies regarding the tussle over NFHS-5 data refuse to die down, the collection for NFHS-6 is underway.
One of the officials who is involved in the ongoing process of data collection for two states, said on the condition of anonymity, “The director’s suspension has come as a shock for all of us. Now, we have also become cautious in the data collection process.”
He did not clarify what this “caution” could possibly mean.