http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.