Date:04/12/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/12/04/stories/2007120499001400.htm

Front Page

Concern over treatment meted out to Venugopal

Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern at the treatment meted out to the former Director of the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, P. Venugopal.

A Bench, comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari, was hearing petitions filed by Dr. Venugopal and the Faculty Association of the AIIMS and its president Dr. B.K. Khaitan, seeking a direction to restrain the Centre and Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss from interfering either directly or indirectly in the AIIMS’ affairs.

“Why are you humiliating such a respectable and eminent person,” Mr. Justice Chatterjee asked Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam. “Certain unfortunate things are done in this case. The matter requires examination. We will consider all the issues.”

Senior counsel Arun Jaitley, appearing for the Faculty Association, expressed an apprehension that at the meeting of the Governing and Institute bodies to be held on December 7 there would be complete destablisation of the AIIMS administration and the Minister would take complete control of the institute. He wanted status quo on Dogra’s appointment to continue.

No discrimination

Dr. Venugopal was appointed for a five-year tenure on July 3, 2003 and he was due to retire in another six months, Fali Nariman, appearing for him, submitted earlier. “What was the urgency in bringing the statute, which is patently discriminatory,” he wondered. He alleged that the entire law was aimed at one person — Dr. Venugopal.

When Mr. Justice Bhandari asked if this was true, Mr. Subramaniam said: “The Act was to ensure that a Director is not appointed under a contract and his tenure would be governed by a statute. It is not hostile discrimination.”

“What is the necessity for the amendment at this stage,” Mr. Justice Chatterjee asked. Mr. Subramaniam said, “We were directed by the Delhi High Court to come out with a comprehensive policy on service rules and regulations, including those governing the Director. By enacting the law, we have removed the ambiguity in the appointment of Director.” He opposed a stay on its operation.

Mr. Nariman argued that the Minister took several steps to remove Dr. Venugopal, including efforts to bring in an ordinance on more than one occasion, and had now succeeded in enacting the law. Describing it as a mala fide exercise of power, he prayed for suspending the operation of the provision curtailing Dr. Venugopal’s tenure.

Senior counsel C.A. Sundaram, appearing for the Minister, said the law could not be faulted. It was passed by Parliament on the basis of the government’s policy decision.

Citing an earlier Supreme Court decision, he said the court should refrain from interfering with the law which, as a result of the policy, could affect one person. That could not be the reason to suspend the operation of the law.