The Supreme Court of India has been conferred with the power of Judicial Review by the Indian Constitution, to set aside a law or rule enacted by the parliament or executive, when it ultravires the provisions of the constitution and due to this salient feature conferred on it , the Supreme Court of India has been called as the guardian or custodian of the Indian Constitution as well as the Indian democracy.
The power of judicial review given to the Supreme Court of India also helps to maintain the powers of checks and balances among the constitutional machinaries.
Recently in the case of AIIMS(All India Institute of Medical Sciences), New Delhi, filed by Dr.Venugopal, the Director of the institution, challenging an amendment carried out by the Union Government of India in the AIIMS Act, mainly at the instance of the Union Health Minister, Dr.Anbumani Ramadass, fixing the retirement age of the Director of the AIIMS at 65 and thereby forcing his retirement, was quashed by the Supreme Court of India as unconstitutional.
What is special about the decision is, the Supreme Court of India, at the instance of Dr.Venugopal, an individual person, who had been unceremoniously ousted from his post, struck down the amendment carried out by the Union Government as unconstitutional.Hence Dr.Venugopal was reinstated as the director of AIIMS, New Delhi.
The Supreme Court while striking down the amendment has attributed malafide intentions and vindictive attitude on the part of the Union Health Minister Dr.Anbumani Ramadass as against Dr.Venugopal. It is well known that there has been some tussle between the two doctors, over the issue of running the institution, one doctor at the helm of affairs of the AIIMS and the other doctor at the helm of affairs of the Union Government. The trouble had been brewing for some time.
And in the end, when the Union Government at the instance of Dr.Anbumani Ramadass, carried out the amendment in the AIIMS Act, and the timeliness and the hastiness with which the amendment was carried out clearly proved the point that Dr.Anbumani Ramadass was egoistic and so with the malafide intentions and a vindictive attitude he had carried out the amendment just to throw away Dr.Venugopal from AIIMS.
The Supreme Court of India rightly took stock of the situation under which the amendment was carried out and so rightly struck down the amendment.
The opposition members mainly from BJP, especially Ms.Sushmaswaraj, demanded the removal of Dr.Anbumani Ramadass by sacking him from the Union Cabinet.The Union Minister had actually misused the constitutional machinery for his personal whims and fancies.Therefore, the demand of the BJP members for the removal of Dr.Anbumani Ramadass is not without substance.Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision had also caused much embarrassment to the Central Government.
To conclude, the power of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr.Venugopal, the Director of AIIMS, was the Judicial Review at its Best.