SC strikes down AIIMS Act, reinstates Venugopal

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

In what can be termed as a major setback for the government, especially for health minister Anbumani Ramadoss, the Supreme court on Thursday reinstated former All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) director P Venugopal to his post after striking down a law passed by Parliament in December 2007 to ease him out.

Trying to put up a brave face, government managers on Thursday evening said they were yet to receive the details of the court verdict even as the Opposition BJP lost no time in demanding Ramadoss’ head over the adverse judgement.

Venugopal had been unceremoniously removed in December after Parliament hurriedly passed the legislation fixing the upper age of retirement of AIIMS director at 65 years. The noted cardiologist, who turned 66 years last year, was forced to relinquish his office following the notification of the law. On Thursday, Venugopal was back in his office at AIIMS within hours of the apex court verdict. “I have always served the institute and will continue to do so for the time given to me”, he said in a brief statement signed as director, AIIMS.

Venugopal, whose tenure was due to end on July 2, had challenged the amendment to the AIIMS Act on the grounds that it was discriminatory and malafidely brought to superannuate him. Upholding his appeal, the bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and HS Bedi gave orders to reinstate him.

The case came up before the Supreme Court on December 3 last year after an intense row marked with bitterness between Venugopal and Ramadoss over the control of the reputed institute. Senior counsel and former law minister Arun Jaitley contended on behalf of Venugopal that the Act was illegal as the High Court had in March last year upheld his continuation in the post and the matter was pending in the apex court. Yet the Centre in the meantime had brought the amendment in Parliament, with the sole aim of throwing him out, he said. The government, on its part, had defended the legislation saying that malice could not be attributed to Parliament for making the law to evolve a policy, and maintained that there was no discrimination against any individual.