Excellent Hair Fall Treatment
Search: Look for:   Last 1 Month   Last 6 Months   All time

Government's conscience in question

New Delhi, Mon, 12 May 2008 Deepak Mohanty

The Supreme Court has rightly said "naked discrimination" and "one-man legislation" while judging the Ramadoss and Venugopal spat. The entire episode of amendment in the AIIMS Act aiming forcefully removing the institute director has certainly a mala fide exercise of power by the government against a person for an individual. This certainly puts a question mark on government's conscience.

P Venugopal who was removed from the director post of AIIMS last year following an amendment in AIIMS law claimed that he was victimised personally with a deliberate attempt by putting an age-bar to the post. The apex court bench comprising of justice Tarun Chatterjee and HS Bedi not only criticised government's stand but also held it constitutional thereby reinstating the doctor's to his chair.

Everybody knows what led the minister act bitterly against the director, which is the result of a long run rivalry between the director and Union Health Minister, Ambumani Ramadoss, who also holds the post of President of the premmiere institute AIIMS.

This all started with the question of institutional autonomy that was openly opposed by the director of AIIMS. It was further intensified with Venugopal's pro-active role in anti-quota agitation. He was accused with mismanagement of institute and was later forced to relinquish his chair by the AIIMS amendment bill passed by the parliament.

The government though cleared his hands by terming the law as an attempt of a just effort to govern selection but the timing of making it a law only indicates a personal rivalry between two people. It was no more a question of institutional autonomy but a clash of ego. From the part of government it was a mere disregard giving the minister chance to play his trick.

Government which serves for the people, by the people and of the people can't just act arbitrarily and the parliamentarian who passed the amendment bill should have to consider their moral obligation. Though the act was not erroneous but the whole intention undoubtedly puts governments' conscience in court.

King of Bhutan, the Bhutan Queen and Crown Prince meeting the PM Modi
PM Narendra Modi welcomes the King of Bhutan
PM Modi paying tributes at the portrait of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
People take part in the Run For Unity on the Rashtriya Ekta Diwas
PM Modi flagging off the Run For Unity on the Rashtriya Ekta Diwas
Post comments:
Your Name (*) :
Your Email :
Your Phone :
Your Comment (*):
  Reload Image


Sudhir Agarwal

May 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM

I support the statement made by hon'ble speaker with concerns about the misjudging the things . Judiciary become most injudicious in last few years. The society keeps on accusing politicians but why the same society is not criticizing the even the corrupt and malicious judges. Most of the high profile judgments are made to obtain media and public attention proving politicians wrong. How two biased judges whose selection and wealth details are kept so secrete can scrape a law which is passed by the more than 500 law makers representing half billion population of this country. The same judiciary if it suits to them say that in the eyes of law all citizens are same, than why separate rule of Venugopal. Is he above the law of land? This needs to be answered by these judges. Both these judges sided with the oppressor that he is being oppressed!. What a judgement.



Excellent Hair Fall Treatment
Careers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | About Us | Contact Us | | Latest News
Copyright © 2015 NEWS TRACK India All rights reserved.