Retributions  

The courts have delivered. Will the government hear the message?

The Supreme Court has junked the AIIMS amendment Act (200) restoring Dr P Venugopal to his position as director of the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences. (AIIMS) The immediate effect of the judgment would be limited; Dr Venugopal is due to retire on the 2nd of July. What is of far more significance and the Court’s message to the government.

India’s health minister, Dr Anbumani Ramdoss, has waged a bitter personal battle with one of India’s most respected cardiac surgeons. Thwarted by the Delhi High Court which rescinded his summary dismissal of Dr Venugopal, he bulldozed the AIIMS amendment bill through the parliament which, as Dr Venugopal’s lawyers argued successfully in the Court, was solely directed at removing him from office. Even in the less than chequered history of India’s democracy, it would hard to find a similar subversion of the parliament to settle petty personal scores. Indeed, as Dr Venugopal has pointed out in an interview, even the so-called academic Prime Minister stood by and let a junior minister ride roughshod over India’s premier medical institution and its custodian.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a resounding slap on Dr Ramdoss’s face. It sends out a clear message that UPA government’s concerted bid to wage war on India’s academic institutions, its attempt to use institutions built with public money to satisfy petty egos must stop. If India’s finest institutions have to thrive, they must be freed of political control. They must be run by professionals and not by a coterie of politicians-bureaucrats.

In an another significant judgment, the Delhi high Court has quashed criminal proceedings against noted painter M.F. Hussain. What is particularly gratifying is that the charges were not struck down on technical grounds. Indeed, the Court’s judgment is a passionate call for liberalism and tolerance in a multi-ethnic society.

“In a free and democratic society, tolerance is vital. This is true especially in large and complex societies like ours where people with varied beliefs and interests mingle,” said the single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. “It is very unfortunate that the works of any artist today who have tried to play around with nudity have come under scrutiny. These artists have had to face the music, making them think twice before exhibiting their work of art.”

As the Court’s judgment clearly spells out, artistic freedom must not trampled under puritanical considerations. Banning books, movies or paintings under the garb of protecting cultural norms or to avoid giving offense to a section of the population is antithetical to the values of a modern, liberal democracy. Let India move from competitive intolerance to a culture of tolerance. As a first step, the Supreme Court should follow Justice Kaul’s direction and quash all criminal proceedings against Hussain. That one of India’s best known painters has to spend the last few years of his life in exile is a national shame.

Over to the government.