B. SHANKARANAND versus COMMON CAUSE AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 11-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
F 
G 
Words and Phrases : 
'Person'-Meaning of-Section 4( e) of the All India Institute of Medical 
Sciences Act, 1956. 
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. 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) 
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 : 
E 
F 
"Composition of the Institute 
The Institute shall consist of the following members, namely : 
(a) The Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University, ex-officio; 
(b) The Director-General of Health Services, Government of 
India, ex·officio; 
( c) The Director of the Institute, ex-officio; 
G 
( d) Two representatives of the Central Government, to be H 
216 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 3 S.C.R. 
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; 
(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 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.