“The autonomy is not of an individual and, in any case, cannot be a tool for its employees to avoid accountability. The objective of autonomy nowhere excludes accountability,” was the crisp reply from the Union Ministry of Health to the Supreme Court.

The Centre’s response came on petitions filed by Venugopal and the faculty association of the institute, alleging that government was interfering in the institute’s autonomy and the Parliament’s recent decision to fix the director’s superannuation age at 65, was a ploy to remove Venugopal.

Agreeing that Venugopal’s removal was “very unfortunate”, the Supreme Court had on December 3 last year, asked the Union Government to reply on what prompted it to rush through the controversial law fixing 65 years as the age of superannuation.

The government also reiterated the importance of its role in the affairs of the institute and said “it cannot be expected of the government to pay huge funds and not have any say in its management and affairs”.

Venugopal’s case raised questions on the motive behind bringing out an amendment in the AIIMS Act in Parliament when his tenure as the director of the institute was coming to an end in July.

Venugopal was appointed as the director on July 3, 2003 for a five-year term, which was to end on July 3 this year.