05-09-2008, 03:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Jolt for UPA, SC reinstates Venu </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
Strikes down law that forced him to step down; sack-Ramadoss demand gains momentum
In a big blow to Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, the Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated noted cardiologist P Venugopal as Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The verdict is a personal defeat for Ramadoss who had made sacking of Venugopal as his personal agenda and used the entire might of the DMK to force the UPA Government to fall in line. Â
The court struck down amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing the upper age of retirement of Director at 65 years, a Ramadoss' authored script that forced Venugopal to relinquish office last year. The court's decision has made Ramadoss continuation as Health Minister untenable and the BJP was quick to seek his resignation.
Venugopal was sacked from the post of the AIIMS Director on November 29 last year, just a day after Parliament passed the AIIMS Amendment Bill, 2007.
Venugopal's remaining tenure is less than two months. He was appointed to the post of the AIIMS Director for a five-year term, which was to end on July 3, 2008.
A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and HS Bedi upheld Venugopal's appeal challenging the AIIMS Amendment Act 2007, as discriminatory and brought in with mala fide intention to superannuate him due to his differences with Ramadoss.
Appearing on behalf of Venugopal, senior counsel and former Law Minister Arun Jaitley had argued that the Act was illegal as the Delhi 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.
Within hours of the court verdict, 66-year-old Venugopal resumed charge at AIIMS. <b>"I have always served the institute and will continue to do so for the time given to me", he said in a brief statement signed as Director, AIIMS.</b>
Calling for Ramadoss' resignation, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj said, "If Ramadoss does not resign, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should dismiss him."
Sushma said it has been established that<b> "Manmohan Singh Government could not protect the interests of the institute of national importance." </b>She also did not see the Supreme Court decision to strike down a law enacted by Parliament as a confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature.
"There is no confrontation because there is a well-established scheme of checks and balances envisaged by the Constitution. While the legislature enacts the law, judiciary interprets it," she said.
In this case, she said, the SC has not struck down the provision fixing the retirement age of the AIIMS Director, but only the proviso making it retrospective as it was "mala fide".
<b>Attacking the Health Minister, she said he has "misused" Parliament to remove Venugopal from the post of Director after he did not get a favourable verdict from the High Court.</b>
Describing the Supreme Court ruling as a "major setback" for the UPA Government, senior BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu said the Health Minister should quit if he has any moral left or else he should be sacked. "This is one more slap on the face of the Government," he added.
Attacking <b>the Prime Minister, he said Singh had "failed to understand the importance of AIIMS and the immorality in bringing a legislation to target an individual when the matter is before the court". </b>
<b>Ramadoss rejected the demand of his resignation saying the amendment was passed by Parliament and 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,"</b> he said.
When the Supreme Court admitted Venugopal's plea on December 3 last year, it 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 after six months on July 2 this year.
The court, however, had expressed "difficulty" in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament at that time.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
Strikes down law that forced him to step down; sack-Ramadoss demand gains momentum
In a big blow to Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, the Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated noted cardiologist P Venugopal as Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The verdict is a personal defeat for Ramadoss who had made sacking of Venugopal as his personal agenda and used the entire might of the DMK to force the UPA Government to fall in line. Â
The court struck down amendment to the AIIMS Act fixing the upper age of retirement of Director at 65 years, a Ramadoss' authored script that forced Venugopal to relinquish office last year. The court's decision has made Ramadoss continuation as Health Minister untenable and the BJP was quick to seek his resignation.
Venugopal was sacked from the post of the AIIMS Director on November 29 last year, just a day after Parliament passed the AIIMS Amendment Bill, 2007.
Venugopal's remaining tenure is less than two months. He was appointed to the post of the AIIMS Director for a five-year term, which was to end on July 3, 2008.
A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and HS Bedi upheld Venugopal's appeal challenging the AIIMS Amendment Act 2007, as discriminatory and brought in with mala fide intention to superannuate him due to his differences with Ramadoss.
Appearing on behalf of Venugopal, senior counsel and former Law Minister Arun Jaitley had argued that the Act was illegal as the Delhi 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.
Within hours of the court verdict, 66-year-old Venugopal resumed charge at AIIMS. <b>"I have always served the institute and will continue to do so for the time given to me", he said in a brief statement signed as Director, AIIMS.</b>
Calling for Ramadoss' resignation, BJP leader Sushma Swaraj said, "If Ramadoss does not resign, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should dismiss him."
Sushma said it has been established that<b> "Manmohan Singh Government could not protect the interests of the institute of national importance." </b>She also did not see the Supreme Court decision to strike down a law enacted by Parliament as a confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature.
"There is no confrontation because there is a well-established scheme of checks and balances envisaged by the Constitution. While the legislature enacts the law, judiciary interprets it," she said.
In this case, she said, the SC has not struck down the provision fixing the retirement age of the AIIMS Director, but only the proviso making it retrospective as it was "mala fide".
<b>Attacking the Health Minister, she said he has "misused" Parliament to remove Venugopal from the post of Director after he did not get a favourable verdict from the High Court.</b>
Describing the Supreme Court ruling as a "major setback" for the UPA Government, senior BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu said the Health Minister should quit if he has any moral left or else he should be sacked. "This is one more slap on the face of the Government," he added.
Attacking <b>the Prime Minister, he said Singh had "failed to understand the importance of AIIMS and the immorality in bringing a legislation to target an individual when the matter is before the court". </b>
<b>Ramadoss rejected the demand of his resignation saying the amendment was passed by Parliament and 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,"</b> he said.
When the Supreme Court admitted Venugopal's plea on December 3 last year, it 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 after six months on July 2 this year.
The court, however, had expressed "difficulty" in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament at that time.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->