2008 (5) TMI 738 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 11 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2007.
2. Alleged discrimination against the writ petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Premature termination of the writ petitioner's tenure as Director of AIIMS.
4. Protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Violation of the orders issued by the High Court of Delhi.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Proviso:
The writ petitioner, a renowned Cardiovascular Surgeon, challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 11 of the AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007. The proviso mandated that any person holding office as Director immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act would cease to hold office and be entitled to claim compensation for premature termination. The petitioner argued that this proviso was designed to apply solely to him, making it a "single-man legislation" and therefore unconstitutional.

2. Alleged Discrimination Under Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the proviso introduced "naked discrimination" by targeting him specifically, thereby depriving him of constitutional protection under Article 14. The proviso did not apply to any future Directors, creating an unjustifiable distinction. The Court agreed, noting that the proviso was not a general law but targeted the petitioner, making it discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

3. Premature Termination of Tenure:
The petitioner was to complete his five-year term as Director on 2nd July 2008 but was removed from office on 30th November 2007 due to the added proviso. The Court found that the proviso brought about a premature termination of the petitioner's tenure without justifiable reasons or compliance with principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that tenure appointments, such as that of the Director of AIIMS, could only be curtailed for justifiable reasons and with due process.

4. Protection of Articles 14 and 16:
The petitioner claimed protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arguing that the proviso deprived him of equal treatment and due process. The Court upheld this claim, stating that the proviso created an unreasonable classification between the petitioner and future Directors, thus violating the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.

5. Violation of High Court Orders:
The petitioner argued that the proviso violated orders issued by the High Court of Delhi, which had affirmed his right to serve as Director until 2nd July 2008 and had issued prohibitory orders against his premature termination. The Court noted that the amendments were introduced purportedly to comply with the High Court's directions but found that they actually aimed to frustrate the High Court's judgment, reducing the petitioner's search for justice to an exercise in futility.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 11 of the AIIMS (Amendment) Act, 2007 was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. The Court struck down the proviso, reinstating the petitioner as Director of AIIMS until 2nd July 2008 and entitling him to his pay and other emoluments from the date of his premature termination. The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the AIIMS authorities to restore the petitioner to his office.