Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice to AIIMS Acting Director Over Non-Compliance with Affidavit Order

June 5, 2026 : The Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against Dr Nikhil Tandon, Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, after expressing strong displeasure over the institution’s failure to comply with its direction requiring the head of AIIMS to personally file an affidavit in a pending case concerning a DNA test report.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing a matrimonial dispute in which the Court had ordered a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child born to the parties.

The controversy arose when the Court found that an affidavit had been filed by Nishant Kumar, a Deputy Secretary at AIIMS, instead of the Director of the institution. Earlier, on April 16, the Court had specifically directed the Director of AIIMS to furnish an explanation. However, the affidavit was submitted by an authorised officer on behalf of the institution rather than by its head.

Taking serious exception to the development, the Bench observed that it had expressly sought an explanation from the Director and that such responsibility could not be delegated to another official. The Court termed this aspect of the affidavit highly objectionable and emphasised that compliance with judicial directions cannot be left to administrative discretion.

Counsel appearing for AIIMS informed the Court that there was currently no regular Director at AIIMS, New Delhi, as the previous Director had demitted office two to three weeks earlier. It was submitted that Dr Nikhil Tandon was only holding charge as Acting Director.

The Supreme Court rejected the explanation, stating that it was both surprised and shocked by the response. The Bench observed that any person occupying a public office, whether in a substantive or acting capacity, is duty-bound to discharge all responsibilities attached to that office. The nature of the appointment, the Court said, cannot be used as a shield against compliance with judicial orders.

Finding a prima facie case of contempt, the Court impleaded Dr Nikhil Tandon, Acting Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, as a party respondent and issued a contempt notice to him. He has been directed to remain personally present before the Court on July 7, 2026, at noon and file his explanation.

On the merits of the dispute, the Bench took note of the DNA analysis report submitted by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The report concluded that the child’s DNA profile matched the DNA profiles of the parties and confirmed that the concerned individual was the biological father of the child.

In view of the findings recorded in the DNA report, the Court held that the miscellaneous applications pending before it no longer required adjudication and disposed of them. However, the matter will remain pending solely for considering the Acting Director’s explanation and his appearance in connection with the contempt proceedings.

The Bench also directed that copies of the DNA report be supplied to all concerned parties. The original report has been ordered to be handed over to the petitioner’s counsel for onward transmission to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner’s counsel has been directed to place the DNA report before the concerned High Court, which will proceed with the underlying matrimonial dispute in accordance with law.