SC scraps law Ramadoss rammed through, Venugopal back at AIIMS

Venugopal had challenged an amendment to the AIIMS Act, passed by Parliament in November last year, fixing the age limit of the director at 65 years, a step that forced him to him relinquish office.

Hearing the case today, a bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi upheld his appeal challenging the impugned law as being discriminatory and malafidely brought to superannuate him.

Seizing the opportunity to put the government on the mat following the court verdict, the BJP demanded the resignation of the Health Minister. “If Ramadoss does not resign, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should dismiss him,” said party leader Sushma Swaraj.

But putting up a brave face, Ramadoss rejected calls for his resignation, saying the government’s decision was passed by Parliament. The Health Minister said the government would decide on the future course of action after going through the judgement. “We have yet to receive details of the court judgement,” he said.

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. But the Centre in the meantime brought the amendment in Parliament, he said.

Backing Venugopal, resident doctors of AIIMS welcomed the court verdict and demanded the resignation of Ramadoss. “This is a victory of truth. Ramadoss is responsible for the entire fiasco and he should resign,” said Kaushal Kant Mishra, spokesperson for the Resident Doctors’ Association.

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. The apex court, while admitting Venugopal’s petition, had expressed displeasure over his removal and described it as “unfortunate”.

“Why such a reputed person is humiliated in this way?” the court had asked the government, while questioning the motive behind bringing an amendment in the AIIMS Act, when Venugopal’s tenure as director was coming to an end on July 2 this year.

The court, however, had expressed “difficulty” in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament at that time.

The government, on the other hand, 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.

“This judgement of the Supreme Court has clearly sent a message that please don’t interfere with the functioning of autonomous institutions and don’t tinker with the intellectuals who have given their life to build up these institutions,” said Venugopal’s lawyer, Mahendra Singh.

UPA was shy but let Ramadoss ride

Ramadoss vs Venugopal spat started in April 2006 during the 18-day stir against OBC quotas. Minister blamed Venugopal for not taking action and stopped 18 days’ salary to doctors who took part in the stir. Then he ordered an inquiry into the functioning of AIIMS. On July 5, AIIMS governing body sacked Venugopal. High Court stayed his sacking.

•July 6, 2007: Venugopal turns 65

•July: Ramadoss brings Ordinance to remove Venugopal by seeking to fix director’s term

•August 17: Ramadoss introduces AIIMS Amendment Bill in Parliament. Bill not discussed

•October/November: Ramadoss pushes for Ordinance again

• Cabinet postpones decision citing absence of Law Minister (Oct 1)

• Postpones again citing absence of Pranab Mukherjee;

• Bill stuck in Parliament adjournment (November 19)

• Parliament passes Bill (November 28); President Oks on Nov 30