New Delhi, December 3
Virtually indicting the Centre for the manner in which it amended the Act governing AIIMS and PGIMER, Chandigarh, the Supreme Court today asked the government why an illustrious doctor like P.Venugopal is being “humiliated”. It issued a notice to the Centre on his petition challenging the new law on the fixation of the tenures of the directors of the two premier health institutions.

A Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari told the government counsel that though it was fully convinced with the arguments of Venugopal’s counsel, Fali S.Nariman for “suspension” of the provision in the law that makes its implementation with retrospective effect, yet it said it could pass an order till the government filed a reply.

Giving time till mid-January to the government to submit the reply, the court restrained the government from appointing a full-time director till the next date of hearing and ordered that the acting director T.D Dogra, given charge soon after Venugopal’s removal on November 30, would continue to hold the post till then.

While putting a straight query to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramaniam, the Bench asked “why such an illustrious person is humiliated… how can an Act be amended in this way.”

The judges in unison said “factually we are with Nariman but since the Act has been implemented, we find it difficult in suspending it” till the government submits its reply.

The court’s main objection was to the provision of the retrospective effect of the amended law as it was more than convinced that it had been brought with the sole motive of targeting Venugopal.

At one point, the Bench asked Subramaniam, who had argued in detail to justify the government action, whether the government’s reply after his clearing its position was at all necessary to pass an interim order of “suspension” against the controversial provision.

But the ASG and Dogra’s counsel C.S Sundaram said the reply is necessary and they would like to file the same before any order is passed.

At this the Bench said “Mr Nariman, our problem is the implementation of the Act… subject to what the government says… we want to finally dispose of the petition as early as possible.”

But throughout the hour-long proceeding, the court gave an impression that it did not approve of the government action as the whole exercise was undertaken by health minister Ambumani Ramadoss to “humiliate” the noted cardiologist in the country. Otherwise, how could an act be amended like this and what was the necessity to amend it, the Court asked.

Earlier, Nariman blasted the government for bringing the law in the way in which it did, saying “it was nothing but hostile discrimination of Prof Venugopal when he had only six months of his five-year fixed tenure to go.

“I want to vent my anguish as a public grievance, it is a slur,” Nariman said, pointing out that the law was brought when government’s own appeal against the Delhi High Court order in the case was pending before the apex court.

As senior advocate Arun Jaitley, appearing for AIIMS Faculty Association, pointed out that Dogra’s appointment was only a stop gap arrangement and the minister has called the meeting of institute’s governing body on December 7, there is every likelihood of a new appointment, and, therefore till further hearing no appointment be made.