New Delhi: The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to AIIMS-New Delhi Acting Director Dr Nikhil Tandon after expressing strong displeasure over the failure to personally file an affidavit in a matrimonial dispute, despite specific directions from the court.
A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said it was both “surprised” and “shocked” by the explanation offered on behalf of the premier medical institution.
The court noted that on April 16 it had specifically directed the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to submit an explanation through an affidavit. However, instead of the director, an affidavit was filed by Nishant Kumar, who identified himself as a deputy secretary at AIIMS.
Taking serious exception to this, the Bench observed that it was not within the discretion of any official to authorise another person to file an explanation when the court had specifically sought a response from the Director.
The court was informed that AIIMS currently does not have a permanent director and that the institution is being headed by an acting director. However, the judges rejected the argument that the temporary nature of the appointment exempted the official from complying with judicial directions.
“Any person who is on a post, either in substantive capacity or in acting capacity, has to take responsibility and perform the duty of the post held by him or her,” the Bench remarked.
The Supreme Court further stated that it would not extend the benefit of doubt to the acting director on grounds of ignorance and indicated that, prima facie, contempt of court had been committed.
Consequently, Dr Nikhil Tandon was formally impleaded as a respondent in the matter and served with a contempt notice. The court directed him to appear personally before the Bench on July 7, 2026, along with a detailed explanation.
The case relates to a matrimonial dispute in which the Supreme Court had sought clarification from AIIMS regarding a DNA examination conducted by the institute’s Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.
During the hearing, the court took note of the DNA analysis report submitted by AIIMS, which concluded that the DNA profile of a child matched the profiles of the parties involved and confirmed the biological paternity of the individual concerned.
The matter will now be heard further on July 7, when the acting director is required to remain personally present before the court.
