Supreme Court Retracts Contempt Notice After AIIMS Acting Director Apologizes
The Supreme Court of India has withdrawn a potential contempt notice against the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) following an unconditional apology. Initially, the court was prepared to issue a contempt notice due to non-compliance with a previous directive concerning a DNA paternity test case.
The Bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, expressed their dissatisfaction over the submission of an affidavit not provided in the Acting Director’s personal capacity, as previously ordered. The court had explicitly demanded an explanation from the AIIMS Acting Director himself, which was not adhered to.
During the proceedings, Justice Amanullah expressed the court’s dismay to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the respondents. “I sought an explanation. But still, an affidavit has been filed. Then I passed another order… Again you have written affidavit. What is wrong Ms Bhati? Why so casual. We are shocked,” remarked Justice Amanullah.
The court noted that the response from the Acting Director displayed a confrontational stance and issued a showcause notice. Justice Amanullah stated, “Another affidavit is filed today, and respondent 4 (Acting Director) has taken a stand which is confrontational to the court and seems to have some ego issues. Notice in contempt is issued against him and let the showcause stand now as to why this court should not pass appropriate orders.”
In defense, Bhati argued that the respondents interpreted the previous court order as requiring an affidavit. However, the court dismissed this explanation, emphasizing the clarity of its directive. Justice Amanullah further asserted, “No understanding and all. Ask him to come here before we rise at 1 PM if not then this order shall stand. The reply should have been an explanation on the behalf of (the AIIMS Acting Director)… What is the affidavit? ‘Explain’ means you are on the back foot and you have to explain. Leave ego at home.”
Shortly after, the Acting Director tendered an unconditional apology, which the court accepted. It was recorded that the affidavit had been filed in his absence, and assurances were made that no further errors would occur in similar matters. The court decided against proceeding with the contempt notice.
This case revolves around a DNA paternity dispute before the Supreme Court. On April 16, 2026, the court had included the AIIMS Director as a respondent, instructing him to provide an explanation regarding the compliance of court directives related to the DNA test conducted by the institute. During the May 27 hearing, the court observed that instead of a personal explanation from the Director, an affidavit had been submitted by the Deputy Secretary of AIIMS, claiming authorization to do so.
Ultimately, the court’s decision to retract the contempt notice followed the Director’s apology and commitment to future compliance, thereby averting further legal proceedings. This resolution underscores the importance of direct compliance with judicial directives to avoid complications and potential legal consequences.
