1995 Supreme(Del) 1

High Court Of Delhi
COMMON CAUSE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 2453 of 1995
Decided On : 01/01/1995

Headnote:

ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 4(E) - INTERPRETATION - NOMINATION OF MEMBERS - FIVE PERSONS TO BE NOMINATED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - ONE NON-MEDICAL SCIENTIST AND FOUR OTHERS - NO RESTRICTION ON CHOICE OF FOUR PERSONS - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS DISCRETION TO CHOOSE ANY FOUR PERSONS - NOT NECESSARILY SCIENTISTS OR MEDICAL SCIENTISTS - SECTION 4(E) DOES NOT RESTRICT NOMINATION OF ALL FIVE PERSONS TO SCIENTISTS OR REPRESENTATIVES OF INDIAN SCIENCE CONGRESS ASSOCIATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, a registered society and a forum for justice and peace, filed a writ petition challenging the nomination of respondent No. 3, Shri B. Shankranand, as a member and the President of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, and as the Chairman of its Governing Body. They contended that the nomination was "by designation" and in his capacity as Minister for Health and Family Welfare, and that since he ceased to be the Minister, he automatically ceased to be a Member and the President of the Institute. They also alleged that respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be nominated as a Member of the Institute under Section 4(e) of the Act, as all the five persons to be nominated under that section should be members and representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association, which respondent No. 3 was not. Additionally, they raised concerns about respondent No. 3's alleged involvement in irregularities and misconduct.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the interpretation given to Section 4(e) of the Act by the Central Government and the learned Additional Solicitor General was correct and that it was the only logical and reasonable interpretation that could be given. The court found that the language in Section 4(e) was plain and unambiguous and admitted of only one meaning, i.e., the Central Government could nominate one non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association and any other four persons to be members of the Institute. The choice of those four persons was not restricted to scientists or representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association. The court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the four persons to be nominated along with the non-medical scientist under Section 4(e) should be medical scientists, holding that the Act did not restrict the nomination of all five persons to scientists or representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association.

Issues: 1. Whether the nomination of respondent No. 3 as a member and the President of AIIMS was "by designation" and in his capacity as Minister for Health and Family Welfare, and whether he automatically ceased to be a Member and the President upon ceasing to be the Minister? 2. Whether respondent No. 3 was eligible to be nominated as a Member of the Institute under Section 4(e) of the Act, considering that all five persons to be nominated under that section should be members and representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association? 3. Whether respondent No. 3's alleged involvement in irregularities and misconduct warranted his removal from office.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 4(e) of the Act and held that the Central Government had the discretion to nominate one non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Association and any other four persons to be members of the Institute, without any restriction on the choice of those four persons. The court found that the language of the provision was plain and unambiguous, and that the petitioners' interpretation, which would have restricted the nomination of all five persons to scientists or representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association, was not supported by the text of the statute. 2. The court rejected the petitioners' contention that respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be nominated as a Member of the Institute under Section 4(e) of the Act, holding that the provision did not restrict the nomination of all five persons to scientists or representatives of the Indian Science Congress Association. The court found that the Central Government had the discretion to choose any four persons as members of the Institute, and that respondent No. 3's nomination was valid.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The court held that respondent No. 3 was entitled to continue as a Member and the President of AIIMS and as the Chairman of its Governing Body, and that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief.