The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Union Health Ministry and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on a writ petition seeking a CBI inquiry into cases of alleged corruption and irregularities at the premier health institution. The cases were earlier brought to light by then AIIMS Chief Vigilance Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
The notices, returnable in four weeks, were also issued to respondents named in the case, including Health Minister J.P. Nadda, the CBI, the Central Vigilance Commission and Mr. Chaturvedi.
The public interest writ petition, moved by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), has sought revival of all cases in which Mr. Chaturvedi had initiated action before he was removed from his post in August last year.
Issuing the notices, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw posted the matter for hearing on April 22.
The petition, filed through counsel Prashant Bhushan, who is also a member of the Aam Aadmi Party, alleged that probe into the irregularities had slowed down, even though corruption in the institution is likely to have a bearing on the health and well-being of thousands of patients.
According to the petition, instances of corruption include supply of spurious medicines, presence of middlemen in issuing out-patient department (OPD) cards, irregularities in purchase of surgery equipment, selection of technical staff and faculty members, unauthorised foreign visits, recruitment on the basis of fake caste certificates and financial irregularities in research projects.
Besides raising the plea for an expeditious CBI probe into the corruption cases and disciplinary proceedings, the petition sought directions to Mr. Nadda to recuse himself from all cases and from acting as disciplinary authority, alleging that he had unfettered powers to influence the proceedings.
Spelling out the grounds for filing the petition, the CPIL said the cases of corruption must be investigated in a fair and independent manner so that persons occupying public offices, if found involved in acts of corruption, are punished. In the present case, an attempt was being made to protect such officers, it added.
