HC quashes the recommendation of  Arumughaswamy Commission for inquiry against former Health Minister

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashes recommendation for an inquiry against former Health Minister C. Vijayabaskar, citing procedural violations

The Madurai  Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday quashed the Justice A.  Arumughaswamy Commission’s recommendation for an inquiry against former Health Minister C. Vijayabaskar in connection with the hospitalisation of and treatment administered to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa at Apollo Hospitals in 2016.

Allowing a petition filed by Dr. Vijayabaskar against the recommendation, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan said the court found infirmity in the commission’s report in so far as the observations and suggestions made against Dr. Vijayabaskar in paragraphs 39.1 to 39.7 and 47.28 were concerned. The judge said the government order issued on the basis of the commission’s recommendation to initiate appropriate action against him after obtaining legal opinion could not be sustained and the same (the commission’s remarks and the government order) were liable to be quashed.

The commission, which had inquired into the hospitalisation of Jayalalithaa and circumstances leading to her death, had recommended an inquiry against Dr. Vijayabaskar and a few others.

“It is clear that Rule 5(2) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972, has been violated since no notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of the rule asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be proceeded against after giving him sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations and the specific charge against him. Further, the materials being used against the petitioner were also not given to the petitioner and he was never given an opportunity to rebut the same,” the court observed.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not served with any notice under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Though all the respondents before the commission were given an opportunity of hearing and cross-examining the witnesses, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and cross-examining the witnesses as contemplated under Sections 8B and 8C of the Act, which is mandatory. The petitioner was not arrayed as a respondent, and only two witnesses were arrayed as respondents, the court said.

In his petition, Dr. Vijayabaskar said the observations, findings, and recommendations against him in the report (dated August 23, 2022) were without any legal basis and could not be construed as “factual finding”, and they ought to be expunged in their entirety.

The former Minister questioned the remarks and observations made in the report. He sought to declare a subsequent government order (dated October 17, 2022), issued by the Chief Secretary, as non-est, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the statutory scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act.