SUPREME COURT WITHDRAWS CONTEMPT NOTICE AGAINST AIIMS ACTING DIRECTOR FOLLOWING UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY

NEW DELHI | JULY 9, 2026
The Supreme Court of India today pulled back a contempt of court notice issued against the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, after the official tendered an swift, unconditional apology before the Bench.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed severe displeasure over institutional non-compliance and what it characterized as a "confrontational attitude" from the premier medical institute before accepting the apology.

Case Background & Procedural Lapses
The matter arose during the ongoing proceedings of a DNA paternity dispute titled Pratibha Kashyap v. State of Uttar Pradesh. On April 16, 2026, the apex court impleaded the Director of AIIMS as a respondent, directing the head of the institution to personally furnish a detailed explanation regarding compliance with the court’s directives on a DNA test conducted by the facility.
During a subsequent hearing on May 27, the Court observed that instead of a personal explanation from the Director, a formal affidavit had been submitted by a Deputy Secretary of AIIMS, who claimed to have been delegated the authority to respond.

The Bench firmly rejected this delegation, emphasizing that when an explanation is explicitly sought from the highest authority of an institution, it is legally impermissible to delegate the responsibility to a subordinate officer.

The Court’s Ire and Contempt Notice
The friction peaked during Thursday's morning session when the Bench was presented with yet another formal affidavit instead of the direct personal explanation requested. The Bench took strict exception to the tone and format of the submission.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, Justice Amanullah remarked:
"I sought an explanation. But still an affidavit has been filed. Then I passed another order... Again you have written affidavit. What is wrong? Why so casual? We are shocked."
The Bench further observed that the document reflected an adversarial approach, noting that the Acting Director seemed to have adopted a stand confrontational to the court. Consequently, the Bench dictated an order issuing a formal notice of contempt against the official.

Rejecting the defense that the authorities had misunderstood the court’s previous order, Justice Amanullah issued a strict ultimatum:
"No understanding and all. Ask him to come here before we rise at 1 PM; if not, then this order [contempt notice] shall stand. The reply should have been an explanation on behalf of [the Acting Director]. 'Explain' means you are on the backfoot and you have to explain. Leave ego at home."

Immediate Apology and Resolution
Prompted by the court's strict stance, the Acting Director moved the court barely an hour later to tender an absolute and unconditional apology.
The official clarified to the Bench that he was physically absent when the non-compliant affidavit was drafted and filed. Taking the statement on record and noting the prompt remorse, the Bench chose to exercise judicial restraint and discharged the contempt notice.

"An unconditional apology has been tendered. We accept the same as it is stated he was not there when the affidavit was filed," the Bench recorded in its final order. The Court further noted the institutional assurance given by AIIMS that no such procedural or administrative lapses would occur in any future judicial matters.

Discription: NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India withdrew a contempt notice against the Acting Director of AIIMS following an immediate, unconditional apology. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan had issued the notice during a DNA paternity suit (Pratibha Kashyap v. UP) after the director repeatedly failed to provide a personal explanation regarding institutional compliance.

The Court strongly rebuked the institute for filing bureaucratic affidavits via subordinate officers instead of the direct personal accountability requested, labeling the stance "confrontational." However, within an hour of the strict ultimatum, the Acting Director approached the Bench, clarified his absence during the filings, and expressed deep regret. Accepting the apology, the apex court dropped the charges, recording assurances that such lapses would not recur.