Any self-respecting Minister would have resigned after the Supreme Court held the amendment to the AIIMS Act that he had bulldozed through Parliament as naked discrimination and one-man legislation. The amendment brought in solely for the purpose of removing Dr P Venugopal from the AIIMS' directorship, was unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, the court said in its verdict on the writ petition filed by the pre-eminent cardiac surgeon.

If the Minister concerned, Mr Anbumani Ramadoss, is defiant and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has no guts to ask for his resignation, it only exposes what type of Government the UPA is running. That the Minister, ever since assuming office, has been trying to bring an autonomous institution, AIIMS, under his control, is well documented. As its Director, Dr Venugopal sought to defend the autonomy of AIIMS and had the support of the majority of the institution's faculty and students. This angered Mr Ramadoss even more. He has been targetting the cardiac surgeon right from the start when, soon after taking over as Health Minister he occupied the AIIMS guest house and began to interfere in day-to-day affairs of the institute.

The Minister, son of the PMK boss in Tamil Nadu who presides over a strong caste lobby there, has left no stone unturned to squeeze Dr Venugopal out of AIIMS. The harassment began with Mr Ramadoss arbitrarily ordering the appointment of key personnel, bypassing the institute's rules and regulations. When the faculty resisted this interference, he resorted to other tricks to humiliate the teachers. He then got the governing body of AIIMS, at a truncated meeting, to remove Dr Venugopal. The Delhi High Court stepped in, cut the Minister to size and reinstated Dr Venugopal as director. Finally, Mr Ramadoss forced an amendment to the AIIMS Act for the sole purpose of getting rid of Dr Venugopal.

What the Supreme Court has said about this amendment brings the UPA Government, which meekly colluded to legislate an unconstitutional and unjust law, to public ridicule. Under the original AIIMS Act, the director has a fixed tenure and Dr Venugopal's tenure ends on July 2. The Minister sought to change the law to make the appointment subject to an age limit with the purpose of reducing Dr Venugopal's term.

Apart from striking down this amendment to the Act as wrong on several constitutional counts and rules of natural justice, the apex court has made an observation that should shame the UPA Government. The court has said: "In the present case, the impugned proviso to Section 11 (1A) itself states that it is carrying out premature termination of the tenure of the writ petitioner. It is also admitted that such a premature termination is without following the safeguards of justifiable reason and notice."

The court has further added: "It creates an unreasonable classification between the writ petitioner and the future directors and deprives the petitioner of the principles of natural justice without there being any intelligible differentia. Clearly the only aim of the law was to enable the Minister to fulfil his animus towards one individual. The question arises how could the UPA Cabinet, knowing fully well that the amendment suffered from several such infirmities, allow such a Bill to be presented before Parliament and then get it bull dozed through?"

The stranger and more shocking part of the tale is that the Government, sworn to protect the Constitution, pleaded before the court in defence of the amendment, arguing the legislation is the domain of Parliament and, therefore, beyond questioning in any court. Such a stand is completely against the Constitution. As the court has pointed out, the Government's claim cannot be accepted as each provision of law is required to stand the test of Article 13 (2) of the Constitution and survive.

That the UPA Government is willing to push through laws that are discriminatory and defend its right to do so even when they militate against the Constitution, should cause grave public concern. Does the UPA Government believe in a monarchy's absolute power?

The very fact that despite the Union Health Minister's series of actions to undermine the autonomy of AIIMS, the Union Cabinet failed to stand up, reveals that the sinner is not just one individual but the entire Government. The Congress has been violating the Constitution right from the days of Mrs Indira Gandhi. The number of institutions that were subverted when she was Prime Minister are legion, starting with the Supreme Court where the rule of seniority was bypassed and committed judges were promoted. It finally led to the imposition of Emergency on June 25, 1975.

The sub plots in this larger plot are many. Only one need be recalled here. That is the story of Sapru House, which was handed over to a Congress activist who systematically went about stripping this great institution to its bones and destroyed it almost completely. The NDA Government rescued it in deference to the appeals of intellectuals and saved it from complete collapse.

Many other Ministers of the UPA are also invading institutions of their choice. Mr TR Baalu of the DMK has already embarrassed his ministerial colleagues and the PMO by his insistent advocacy of his sons' business interests and forced GAIL to bend the rules of gas allocation. The exposé of this act of nepotism has left the UPA desperate to hide its face. Mr Baalu is not leaving the NHAI to do its job of building the expressways that Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee had envisaged when he was the Prime Minister. NHAI had three chiefs in six months; the incumbent is said to be on the verge of being sacked.

Mr Baalu is also infamous for his advocacy of the Sethusamudram project against the sentiments of millions of people. The UPA has gone along with him in this deliberate act of slighting popular faith, despite being embarrassed again and again, including by observations and instructions by the Supreme Court.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, May 16, 2008