Raising searching questions as to why AIIMS Director P Venugopal was humiliated, the Supreme Court on Monday termed his removal as very unfortunate. The court also asked what prompted the government to rush through the controversial law fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation.
The court issued notices to the Centre and Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss asking them to file their replies to the petitions filed by Venugopal and the doctors' association within two weeks.
"Why was such a respected and reputed person humiliated in this way," a bench comprising Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari asked.
They raised questions on the motive behind bringing out an amendment in the AIIMS Act in Parliament when Venugopal's tenure as Director was coming to an end after six months in June 2008..
The bench made it clear that it was inclined towards Venugopal's arguments, but said there was difficulty in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament.
"Was there any necessity of bringing the amendment at this stage," the court asked when the Centre justified its act by saying Venugopal was on contractual appointment and it was addressing the concern of the Delhi High Court which wanted the ambiguity in the appointment to be removed by way of regulation or a statute.
The bench's annoyance over the turn of the events was further evident at the fag end of an hour-long hearing when it said, "On the facts of the case, we are with Venugopal."
The bench found strength in many of the arguments put forward by senior advocates Fali Nariman and Arun Jaitley, who appeared for Venugopal and the Faculty Association of AIIMS.
© 2026