By Our Correspondent
New Delhi, May 8: Dr P. Venugopal returned to the helm of the prestigious All-India Institute of Medical Sciences here on Thursday after the Supreme Court struck down an amendment brought into the AIIMS Act by the Centre fixing the upper age of retirement of the director of the institute at 65 years.
Dr Venugopal had been unceremoniously ousted from the post of AIIMS director in November last year, hours after President Pratibha Patil had signed the controversial AIIMS amendment bill. The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences and the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2007 had been introduced by Union health and family welfare minister Anbumani Ramadoss in Parliament in August 2007 after the turf war between the health minister and the AIIMS chief sunk to a new low over the autonomy of the institute. The bill was passed in Parliament amid stiff opposition from the BJP and the AIADMK.
The Supreme Court verdict has proved a major setback for the Centre and for Dr Ramadoss in particular, with several top Opposition leaders demanding that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh immediately dismiss the health minister. "I demand the resignation of Ramadoss, and if he is not resigning I want the Prime Minister to dismiss him forthwith," BJP leader Sushma Swaraj told reporters. The party also targeted Dr Manmohan Singh for "failing" to protect the premier institute of national importance. While Dr Ramadoss swiftly dismissed calls for his resignation on Thursday, the turn of events has left the health minister red-faced. He maintained that he had not "‘misled" the government on the entire issue, and that the bill in question had been placed in Parliament after the Union Cabinet had given its approval. "It was a bill passed by Parliament and a government decision," Mr Ramadoss told reporters. He said: "Where is the case of misleading the government when we have passed it in Parliament?"
The health minister denied that the court’s order was a setback to him personally. "There is no question of any setback. Let us go through the judgment. We have not decided anything," Mr Ramadoss said, adding that the government would decide what to do next after studying the court’s ruling in detail.
A bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H.S. Bedi upheld the appeal filed by Dr Venugopal challenging the impugned law as being discriminatory and mala fide, brought in to superannuate him. Within hours of the court order, the 66-year-old Dr Venugopal resumed charge at AIIMS. "I have always served the institute and will continue to do so for the time given to me," he said in a brief statement. Copies of the statement, which he signed as "Director, AIIMS", were distributed outside his office.
"I thank all right-minded people who are concerned with the well-being and further advancement of AIIMS in serving the masses of this country," he said. Earlier, in an initial reaction to the court order through a resident doctor, Dr Venugopal said "the (court) decision has thwarted the gameplan carried out in Parliament."
Dr Venugopal has less than two months of his term of office left: it is due to end on July 2. Sources at AIIMS said Dr Venugopal might now go to court regarding the five months that he was out of office since November 30, 2007.
"This judgment of the Supreme Court has clearly sent a message: please don’t interfere with the functioning of autonomous institutions and don’t tinker with intellectuals who have given their life to build up these institutions," said Dr Venugopal’s lawyer, Mahendra Singh. Medicos at AIIMS termed the Supreme Court verdict as a victory for the "dignity" of the medical fraternity, saying that the health ministry’s "targeting" of Dr Venugopal was an insult to the entire medical community. AIIMS faculty association president Vinod Khaitan said Dr Venugopal had become the "symbol" of the dignity of the medical fraternity and demanded Dr Ramadoss’ resignation.
The AIIMS Resident Doctors’ Association, which had protested against Dr Venugopal’s removal, said Dr Ramadoss was responsible for the entire "fiasco" as well as for showing AIIMS in a poor light due to a pate of controversies. "This is a victory of truth ... Ramadoss is responsible for the entire fiasco and he should resign," said Kaushal Kant Mishra, spokesperson of the association.
The case came up before the Supreme Court on December 3 last year. The court, while admitting Dr Venugopal’s petition, had expressed displeasure over his removal and described it as "unfortunate". "Why is such a reputed person humiliated in this way?" the court had asked the government while questioning the motive behind bringing in an amendment to the AIIMS Act when Dr Venugopal’s tenure as director was coming to an end after six months, on July 2 this year. 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. The government had further contended that it was merely addressing the directive of the Delhi high court for removing the "ambiguity" in the appointment of the director by enacting a law. The court had at that time expressed "difficulty" in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament.
