B. SHANKARANANDversusCOMMON CAUSE AND ORS.

A                              B. SHANKARANAND
                                           v.
                           COMMON CAUSE AND ORS.

                                  MARCH 11, 1996

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

            All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956: Sections 4, 6(2) and
    22.

C          All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Membershir-Eligibility
    criteria fol"-Section 4(e}-Interpretation of-Nomination of member-Held
    Central Government can nominate four persons, other than 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 AlIMS-Object of
D   the Act is to improve excellence and high standards in all faculties of medical
    specialities and of treatment-There should be no undue inteiference by the
     Government of India in the autonomous management of the
    AIIMS-Nomination of Minister of Health and Family Welfare by virtue of            r
    his office held valid-Held he was entitled to continue as member as long as
E   he held the office of Minister.

            Words and Phrases :

          'Person'-Meaning of-Section 4(e) of the All India Institute of Medical
    Sciences Act, 1956.
F
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4662 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Delhi High Court
    in C.W.P. No. 2453 of 1995.
G
            G. Ramaswamy, G.K. Bansal and Sanjay Bansal for the Appellant.

         G.L. Sanghi, Vipin Sangh, Pramod Dayal, Santosh Kumar and Ms.
    Aparna for the Respondent No. 1.

H           D.D. Thakur, Wazir Singh, Mukul Gupta and Ms. Mukti Gupta for
                                       214
                       B. SHANKARANAND v. COMMON CAUSE                           215

     the Respondent No. 4.                                                             A
              Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Barun K. Sinha and B.K. Satija for the Intervcnors.

              The following Order of the Court was delivered :

              We have heard learned counsel on all sides even at the acmission         B
     stage.

              Leave granted. Intervention application ordered.

           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 C
     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 rcprc- D
     senting 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 Act comprising different
     interests (of which category of five persons enumerated in clause (e) E
     thereof), all the five persons should be scientists, either medical or non-
     medical, representing the Indian Science Congress Association or only one
     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 :
                                                                                       F
                "Composition of the Institute

                The Institute shall consist of the following members, namely :

                (a) The Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University, ex-officio;
                                                                                       G
                (b) The Director-General of Health Services, Government of
               India, ex·officio;

                (c) The Director of the Institute, ex-officio;

                (d) Two representatives of the Central Government, to be               H
                                                                                    ~
                                                                                    '   .



    216                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A           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;
B
            (f) Four representatives of the medical faculties of Indian Univer-
            sities 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
c           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
D separate interest to represent the AI!MS 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
E   non-medical scientist representing the Indian Science Congress Associa-
    tion 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
F   intended to have a representation from the Ministry of Health and Family
    Welfare and other official persons who are intimately connected or as-
    sociated 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
G   treatment from doctors having profound and specialised knowledge in the
    respective faculties and specialities. In the management of the supreme
    body, 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
H   then h0lding the port-folio as Minister of Health and Family Welfare, the
               B. SHANKARANAND v. COMMON CAUSE                           217

seconu member Mr. M.S. Dayal holding the office, at that time as the A
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 coun-
sel, that the word 'person' has to be understood in the context in which the B
language was couched and the person mentioned in clause (e) would be
other than those scientists either medical or non-medical. It is also true, as
contended by Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel, that when Section
6 contemplates ex-officio members, their term is co-terminus 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
                                                                                c
than non-medical scientists representing Indian Science Congress Associa-
tion. 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            D
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            E
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 the considered view that the
Central Government is justified to nominate four persons, other than
scientists and the fifth bei'lg the non-medical scientist representing the
                                                                                F
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 estab-
lishing the institution to maintain high standards, discipline and order in     G
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   H
    218                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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. Conse-
    quently, the Central Government is also empowered to nominate the
D   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 to inter se claims of competing candidates is        !-
    involved, it would be open to the aggrieved persons to agitate their rights
E   according to law. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                  Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                    •