New Delhi, December 3
The implications of the amended law in respect of Chandigarh’s PGIMER Director A K Talwar came in for close scrutiny in the Supreme Court today when it put several questions to the government counsel about his tenure to apply the “law of equity” while comparing his position vis-à-vis ousted AIIMS’ Director P Venugopal.

The queries were put by a Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari when Venugopal’s counsel Fali S. Nariman alleged that the government had taken diametrically opposite stands in respect of the two directors when it came to the implementation of the law and their holding dual charge as head of the department of their expertise and head of the respective institutes.

Nariman said that he had no objection to the government fixing the tenure of the directors of the two premier institutes as five years or 65 years of age, whichever is early, but if the said provision is made applicable in respect of any “existing holder” of the office, with retrospective effect it ought to be struck down as mala fide is writ large in the government action. “A provision has been made in the Act that if any person is the holder of the post inconsistent to its provisions of the amended law, he shall cease to be the director but in the case of PGI director the government is “selectively” protecting him,” Nariman claimed.

He said the law of equity had not been applied by the government in respect to the two directors while implementing the Act as in the case of Talwar, he has been allowed to continue till 2009.

“In the proviso (of retrospective effect) the government is giving a deliberate colour of justification by citing the example of Talwar that it will apply to him as well but not immediately because he retires at the age of 65 or after completing the five years tenure which ever is early.”

“The minister very well knew that it would not apply to Prof Talwar and, therefore he was citing his example to apply the ‘law was equally’ in the case of both the directors,” Nariman said, adding his stand was far from the truth as the government had taken a diametrically different views in the case of Talwar and Venugopal.

Nariman further said that the bias of government against Venugopal was evident from its submission before the Delhi High Court that he could not head both posts the head of the department of cardiology and the Director of AIIMS simultaneously but in case of Prof Talwar, the government had said that he could hold the two posts at the same time.

But Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam claimed that the case of Prof Talwar was a bit on different footing as he was appointed the Director of PGIMER in 2004 for five years and will retire at the age of 65 years, which he attains in 2009.

So far as Talwar’s holding of the dual charges as PGIMER’s Director and head of the department, there was no other person immediately available and the government had already issued an ad for appointment of the new HoD in his place.