Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in AIIMS Act Nomination Dispute by Harmoniously Interpreting Section 4(e). Central Government Empowered to Nominate Four Non-Scientists and One Non-Medical Scientist Representing Indian Science Congress Association Under Section 4(e) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, and Nomination of Minister of Health and Family Welfare by Office Is Valid for Tenure of Office.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition arising from a Delhi High Court order that invalidated the nomination of B. Shankranand under Section 4(e) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956. The dispute concerned the composition of the AIIMS governing body and whether the appellant, who was the Minister of Health and Family Welfare at the time of nomination, could be validly nominated under clause (e) despite not being a scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association. The Delhi High Court Division Bench had expressed a difference of opinion, and a third judge by order dated February 29, 1996 agreed with one view, holding that the appellant was not a scientist and therefore his nomination was bad in law. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was the correct interpretation of Section 4(e), which provided for 'Five persons of whom one shall be a non-medical scientist, representing the Indian Science Congress Association, to be nominated by the Central Government'. The clause was susceptible of two interpretations: either all five nominees had to be scientists representing the Indian Science Congress Association, or only one among them had to be a non-medical scientist representing that association while the remaining four could be other than scientists. Senior counsel Sri G. Ramaswamy argued that the word 'person' should be understood in context as referring to persons other than scientists, while Shri D.D. Thakur contended that Section 4(e) did not indicate nomination associated with office, unlike Section 6 which contemplated ex-officio members. The court examined the legislative intent from the working of the Act since 1956 and pragmatic considerations, noting that AIIMS is a premier institution requiring high standards, and the Government needed a say in its management to protect public interest. Applying harmonious construction, the court held that the Central Government was justified in nominating four persons other than scientists and one non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association. The four non-scientists could be integrally connected with the management and associated with the working of AIIMS. The court further held that the appellant was nominated by virtue of his office as Minister of Health and Family Welfare and was entitled to continue as a member and Chairman as long as he held that office. Upon cessation of that office, the incumbent succeeding to the office would be entitled to be nominated for the residue period, consistent with sub-section (2) of Section 6. Actions taken pursuant to the nomination were saved under Section 22 of the Act. The court cautioned that there should be no undue interference by the Government in the autonomous management of AIIMS and that it should not be treated as any other department of the Government. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, and any other legal issues relating to interse claims of competing candidates were left open to be agitated according to law. No costs were awarded.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Central Government is empowered to nominate five persons under Section 4(e) of the AIIMS Act, of whom one shall be a non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association and the remaining four may be persons other than scientists, preferably integrally connected with the management of AIIMS. The appellant, nominated by virtue of his office as Minister of Health and Family Welfare, was entitled to continue as a member and Chairman as long as he held that office. Upon cessation of that office, the incumbent succeeding to the office would be entitled to be nominated by the Central Government for the residue period, consistent with sub-section (2) of Section 6. Actions taken pursuant to the nomination were saved by Section 22 of the Act. Any other legal issue relating to interse claims of competing candidates was left open. No costs were awarded.

Law Points