Supreme Court refuses to restore ousted AIIMS director

New Delhi, Dec 3 The Supreme Court Monday refused to restore the services of eminent cardiologist P. Venugopal as AIIMS director, saying it was "finding it difficult" to suspend the law fixing the retirement age for the post.

A bench of Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Dalveer Bhandari could not provide legal reprieve to the former head of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), even as it said: "We are with Dr. Venugopal on the facts of the case.

"It (the bench) is, however, finding it difficult to suspend the law," the bench added.

Venugopal had challenged the amendments in the law on AIIMS, which President Pratibha Patil approved Friday. The health ministry immediately removed him as director and appointed T.D. Dogra in his place.

The law - All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (Amendment) Act, 2007 - limits the tenure of the directors of the two institutes to a maximum of five years or till they reach the retirement age of 65, whichever is earlier.

The new law was viewed as a move by Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to remove Venugopal, with whom he has been involved in a bitter turf war. Venugopal, a noted cardiologist who has been associated with AIIMS for 42 years, is over 66 years of age.

According to the provisions of the original law passed in 1956, AIIMS directors are appointed for a fixed tenure of five years, irrespective of their age. Venugopal was named director in July 2003 at the age of 62 and was due to retire in July 2008 at the age of 67.

While refusing to grant any reprieve to Venugopal, the bench, however, restrained the government from tinkering with the tenure of the newly appointed AIIMS director, who too does not happen to be on the best of terms with Ramadoss.

The bench restrained the government from acting against the new director on the apprehension of Venugopal's counsel Fali S. Nariman and Arun Jaitley, who told the court that even Dogra had been suspended by this government last October but was reinstated later on the orders of the Delhi High Court.

While refusing to suspend the amendments, the bench agreed with Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian's contention that "a parliamentary law cannot be rendered illegal on the grounds of malafide" of the government.

"The allegations of malafide (by the government) in passing the law cannot be transferred to parliament," contended Subramanian.

The government's law officer, however, had to face quite a few grilling questions from the bench.

"Can a law be passed to target a single individual?" asked the bench.

Subramanian replied that the government had enacted the law as per a Delhi High Court ruling last October, which had asked the government to enact a proper law governing the tenure of the AIIMS director and save it from the prospects of litigations and enhance its prestige.

At this, Nariman contended that the ruling, on the grounds of which the government was justifying the law, had been challenged by the government itself before the apex court.

He contended that by enacting the law, the government has encroached upon the domain of the judiciary, ignoring the principle of separation of powers in the parliamentary democracy.

Making a fervent plea to suspend the law, Jaitley pointed out to the court that this law would be applicable to only one person, namely Venugopal. - IANS