We have every right (and perhaps every reason) to demonise Subramanian Swamy (SS). Exercise of this right does not obligate us to overlook some interesting facts and legal nuances.
1) SS became the Professor of Economics in IIT D on the unanimous recommendation of a 9-member selection committee headed by later-day prime minister Manmohan Singh. (Is this one of the reasons why SS has a soft corner for MMS? Is this also not one of the many blunders committed by MMS?)
2) 20th Feb, 1991 judgment of District Court, Delhi which continues to be in force says, "the appointment of SS was illegally, arbitrarily and with malafide motive terminated by IIT D. "(Quite a certificate). The sub-judge declared the termination order as null and void and asserted that SS was entitled to be treated as continued in service without interruption. (This is why SS claims that deduction of remuneration from elsewhere as required under Fundamental Rule 54 is not applicable. The Rule is applicable in cases of reinstatement; there is no question of reinstatement when the court has contemptuously dismissed termination. This looks more like logical conclusion and less like legal quibbling.)
3) As HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal wrote to SS on 25.02.10 that the government was acting under Rule 54.
4) SS has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court praying for a decree for recovery of salary from 12.12.72 to 21.05.91 (SS resigned on this day) which comes to Rs.19.50 lac, alongwith interest at 18% from 1991 till date. (Why is it that SS is not claiming interest for each and everymonth's salary from the respective month itself? This unclaimed interest amounts to about Rs.30 lac !)
5) IIT D applied for rejection of this petition on the ground that limitation had expired and the suit was not valued properly for court fees. (When you have a weak case, should you clutch at a straw?)
6) IIT D Alumni Association stands behind the Director and has protested against "his resignation for personal reasons". Did these alumni or the-then students protest when a Professor was sacked arbitrarily with malafide intentions?