PETITIONER: B. SHANKRANAND Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMON CAUSE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (3) 556 1996 SCALE (3)8 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel on all sides even at the
admission stage.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order made
on 29.2.1996 in Writ Petition No.2453/95 by the third
learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi whom matter was
referred pursuant to the difference of opinion expressed by
a Division Bench of the High Court in the orders dated
December 6, 1995. The learned Judge agreed with one of the
two learned Judges and held that the appellant, nominated
under Section 4(e) of the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences [AIIMS] Act [25 of 1956] [for short, the ‘Act’],
not being a scientist – either medical or non-medical
representing the Indian Science Congress Association, is not
a person within the meaning of that section; he thus being
not entitled to be nominated, his nomination is bad in law.
The question that arises is: whether in the composition of
members indicated in Section 4 of the Act comprising
different interests [of which category of five persons
enumerated in clause (e) thereof], all the five per should
be Scientists, either medical or non-medical, representing
the Indian Science Congress Association or only ors among
them should be a non-medical scientist representing the
Indian Science Congress Association and rest four be other
than the medical or non-medical scientists category? Section
4 deals thus:
“Composition of the Institute ;
The Institute shall consist of the
following members, namely:-
(a) The Vice-Chancellor of the
Delhi University, ex-officio;
(b) The Director-General of Health
Services, Government of India, ex-
officio;
(c) The Director of the Institute,
ex-officio;
(d) Two representatives of the
Central Government, to be nominated
by the Government, one from the
Ministry of Finance and one from
the Ministry of Education;
(e) Five persons of whom one shall
be a non-medical scientist,
representing the Indian Science
Congress Association, to be
nominated by the Central
Government;
(f) Four representatives of the
medical faculties of Indian
Universities to be nominated by the
Central Government in the manner
prescribed by rules; and
(g) Three members of Parliament of
whom two shall be elected from
among themselves by the members of
the House of the People and one
from among themselves by the
members of the Council of States.
Each interest mentioned in Section 4 appears to be
distinct and separate interest to represent the AIIMS as an
institute body. Clause (e), if read as a whole, is
susceptible of two interpretations. One interpretation which
found favour with the two learned Judges of the Division
Bench is that all the five persons – one non medical and
four medical scientists would be nominated to represent the
Indian Science Congress Association. The other
interpretation is that one among the five persons would be a
non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science
Congress Association and other four would be other than
scientists. If the working of the Act from 1956 is kept in
view, it would appear that they intended to give
representation to four persons other than the scientists
neither medical nor non-medical. But in actuality the
Central Government appears to have intended to have a
representation from the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and other official persons who are intimately
connected or associated with the working of the AIIMS. It is
needless to mention that AIIMS is one of the premier
institutions in the country which maintains high standards
required to be maintained for catering the medical
facilities to all teaming patients, from all over the
country, who seek the expert treatment from doctors having
profound and specialized knowledge in the respective
faculties and specialities. In the management of the
supremebody, the Government also seem to evince interest in
its proper, efficient, effective and orderly management.
Obvious, therefore, the Government exercising the power on
March 9, 1994 nominated the appellant, who was then holding
the port-folio as Minister of Health and Family Welfare, the
second member Mr. M.S. Dayal holding the office, at that
time as the Secretary, Department of Health, Professor J.S.
Bajaj, Member, Planning Commission and Professor P. Chandra,
Former Dean, AIIMS.
It is true, as contended by Sri G. Ramaswamy, learned
senior counsel, that the word ‘person’ has to be understood
in the context in which the language was couched and the
person mentioned in clause (e) would be other than those
scientists either medical or nonmedical. It is also true, as
contended by Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel, that
when Section 6 contemplates ex-officio members, their term
is coterminous with their cessation of office, Section 4(e)
does not seemingly intend to refer to nomination associated
with the office, but to the individual members other than
non medical scientists representing Indian Science Congress
Association. But on a harmonious and conjoint
interpretation, we are of the opinion that the Government,
while enacting the Act, appears to have intended to preserve
the autonomy of the AIIMS, and also to have a say in its
management. Under those circumstances, the Government
appears to have nominated the Minister of Health and Family
Welfare and the Secretary of Department of Health as
Chairman and member respectively so that in the ultimate
management of the supreme body constituted under the Act,
the Government also will protect the interests of the
institution. Otherwise, it would appear that the Government
does not seem to have any say or control in the management
of the AIIMS. Considered from this pragmatic background and
from the point of view of the importance of the institution
and public interest, we are of that considered view that the
Central Government is justified to nominate four
persons, other then scientists and the fifth being the
non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science
Congress Association. However four members may be
integrally connected with the management and associated
also with the working of the AIIMS. If this
interpretation is given, we are of the view that it
would subserve the greater public interest in the
proper, effective, efficient and orderly management of
AIIMS and the purpose of establishing the institution
to maintain high standards, discipline and order in its
management would be best subserved. However, there
should be no undue interference by the Government of
India in the autonomous management of the AIIMS and it
should not be treated as any other Department of the
Government, since the object of the Act is to improve
excellence and high standards in all faculties of medical
specialities and of treatment.
Accordingly, we hold that the appellant was nominated
by virtue of his office as the Minister of Health and Family
Welfare and he would be entitled to continue in that office
as long as he held that office. Thereafter, he ceases to be
a member of the supreme body and consequently to be the
Chairman of the body as nominated by the Government in the
same order dated March 9, 1994. In his place the incumbent
succeeding to the office of Minister of Health and Family
Welfare would be entitled to be nominated by the Central
Government and he would hold the office for the residue
period. This will be consistent with sub-section (2) of
Section 6 also.
Accordingly, we hold that the Central Government is
empowered to nominate five persons under Section 4(e), as
indicated above and the persons would be members of the
supreme body of the AIIMS. Consequently, the Central
Government is also empowered to nominate the Minister as
Chairman as was done earlier.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Whatever actions
have been taken pursuant to the nomination are saved by
Section 22 of the Act. If any other legal issue relating
interse claims of competing candidates is involved, it would
be open to the aggrieved persons to agitate their rights
according to law. No costs.