SC unhappy with Centre over Venugopal's removal

Describing the removal of AIIMS Director P Venugopal as "very unfortunate", the Supreme Court today shot searching questions at the Centre. The court asked the government what prompted it to rush through the controversial law fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation of AIIMS director.

"Why such a reputed person is humiliated in this way?" a Bench comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Dalveer Bhandari said while questioning the motive behind bringing an amendment in the AIIMS Act when Venugopal's tenure was ending in June.

The Bench, which was inclined towards the arguments of Venugopal, however, said there was "difficulty" in staying the operation of the law.

"Was there any necessity of bringing the amendment at this stage?" the court asked when the Centre justified the move by saying that Venugopal was working on contract and that it was addressing the concerns of the Delhi High Court, which wanted that the ambiguity in the appointment be removed by a regulation or a statute.

The case came up before the court after a bitter turf war between Venugopal and Health Minister Ambumani Ramadoss over the control of the prestigious institution.

The Bench found strength in many of the arguments of senior advocate Fali Nariman and Arun Jaitley, who appeared for Venugopal and the Faculty Association of AIIMS.

The advocates alleged the amended law was "hostile" and "discriminatory" against the distinguished cardiologist.

Nariman, who called for a reconsideration of the law, said, "It is a naked use of usurpation of judicial power". He said there was no objection to the two aspects that the tenure of AIIMS director would be for five years and till the age of 65 years but the amendment fixing the age could not be enforced retrospectively.

"This was simply to oust a single person (Venugopal)," he said.