The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the Acting Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, following failure to comply with a court-ordered personal explanation in a DNA paternity test case. The bench expressed strong disapproval, noting that previous directives were met with a general affidavit instead of the required personal response.
The Supreme Court of India has initiated contempt proceedings against the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. This action follows a series of hearings regarding a DNA paternity dispute where the court had explicitly requested a personal explanation from the Director regarding the institute's handling of the matter.
Court Rejects General Affidavit
During the latest proceedings, a bench led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed sharp dissatisfaction with how the court's earlier directions were managed. While the court had previously ordered the Director to personally explain the institute's compliance with testing protocols, the administration instead submitted a general affidavit signed by a Deputy Secretary. The bench rejected this response, emphasizing that a personal explanation was necessary given the nature of the instructions provided.
Concerns Over Confrontational Approach
The justices expressed shock at the approach taken by the AIIMS administration, characterizing it as both casual and confrontational. The bench observed that the director's stance appeared to reflect unnecessary ego, warning that such an attitude towards judicial directives is unacceptable. The court reiterated that when a specific personal explanation is ordered, it must come from the designated individual rather than being delegated to lower-level officials.
Context of the Dispute
The ongoing case centers on a paternity dispute involving DNA testing conducted by the premier medical institute. The court had first issued a directive on April 16, 2026, seeking clarity on how the test was performed and why certain court directions were not strictly adhered to. When the matter was reviewed again on May 27, 2026, the failure to provide the requested personal account led to the current escalation. While the court has not yet demanded the physical presence of the Acting Director, it has mandated that a formal, personal explanation must now be filed in line with the contempt notice.
For legal observers and administrative staff at large public institutions, the case serves as a reminder of the court's expectation regarding procedural compliance. The next critical update will be the filing of this personal explanation and how the Supreme Court evaluates the director’s adherence to the new order.