The Central government on Thursday received a major setback with the Supreme Court striking down the law that enabled premature retirement of noted cardiologist P Venugopal as Director of the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences after a raging row with Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss.

A bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and H S Bedi upheld the appeal filed by Venugopal challenging the impugned law as being discriminatory and malafidely brought to superannuate him.

Venugopal had contended that the amendment was brought with the sole purpose of removing him from his office due to his differences with Ramadoss.

The amendment relating to the AIIMS Act fixed the upper age of retirement of director at 65 years leading to Venugopal's retirement.

Senior counsel and former Law Minister Arun Jaitely had contended on behalf of Venugopal that the Act was illegal as the high court had in March last year upheld his continuation in the post and the matter was pending in the apex court. But the Centre in the meantime brought the amendment in Parliament, he said. 

The case came up before the Supreme Court on December 3 last year after an intense row marked with bitterness between Venugopal and Ramadoss over the control of the reputed institute.

The apex court, while admitting Venugopal's petition, had expressed displeasure over his removal and described it as 'unfortunate'.

"Why such a reputed person is humiliated in this way," the court had asked the government, while questioning the motive behind bringing an amendment in the AIIMS Act, when Venugopal's tenure as director was coming to an end after six months on July 2 this year.

The court, however, had expressed 'difficulty' in staying the operation of the law passed by Parliament at that time.

The government, on the other hand, had defended the legislation saying that malice could not be attributed to Parliament for making the law to evolve a policy, and maintained that there was no discrimination against any individual.

The government had further contended that it was merely addressing the directive of the Delhi High Court for removing the 'ambiguity' in the appointment of the director by making statute.

Though it is not clear whether the apex court has ordered Venugopal's reinstatement, the effect of the judgment in essence would mean that the government is now under an obligation to bring back the director.