'How Dare You?': Supreme Court Raps AIIMS' Acting Director For Filing 'Affidavit' Instead Of 'Explanation'

The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the AIIMS' Acting Director over his filing of an "affidavit" instead of an "explanation" in a matter where the Court had ordered a DNA test but the same was not timely conducted.

A partial Court working days bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan initially ordered initiation of contempt proceedings against the Acting Director and withdrew an exemption granted to him from personal appearance. Around 12.30 PM, it even called on Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to ensure that the Acting Director entered appearance before the bench rose (around 1 PM), otherwise the order would stay as is.

However later, the observations/directions were withdrawn and the matter closed with an amendment to the "affidavit". The order further recorded the ASG's statement that appropriate steps would be taken to sort issues in the officers' understanding of Court orders/proceedings, so that no such further 'error' occurs.

Briefly put, the issue pertained to a case where the main petition was disposed of in October 2025 with a direction to AIIMS to conduct DNA test of a child. However, as the petitioner-woman and her child did not visit AIIMS on the scheduled date, the hospital wrote to the Court's Registry that the test could not be done and the matter was taken up.

Subsequently, the Court ordered that its directions be complied with by April 16, 2026. Although, it turned out that even by that time, the DNA test was not conducted, apparently as the person in-charge had superannuated. The Court found the reasoning "untenable", noting that the AIIMS' Director could have filed a petition before the Court seeking permission to engage the service of the person who had superannuated. He had to be aware that DNA testing was important to the case and a responsibility was given to him, the Court said.

The matter was next listed in May, calling for an "explanation" by the Director. On that date, the Court was "shocked" to find that an affidavit, in the form of explanation, had been tendered by AIIMS' Deputy Secretary, instead of the Director. It was informed that AIIMS had no Director at the time, but the Court noted that there was an Acting Director posted (in temporary capacity), who failed to tender the affidavit himself.

Issuing contempt notice to the Acting Director, and calling for his personal appearance alongwith an explanation on July 7, the Court ordered,

"We are not only surprised but shocked at the said response. 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/her in whatever capacity it may be. We will not give benefit of doubt to the present Director/Acting Director of any ignorance. Accordingly, in the Court's tentative view, the present Acting Director, AIIMS, New Delhi has committed contempt."

Notably, by this date, the DNA test had been conducted and the results informed to the Court. As such, the matter was closed on merits, with a direction to the petitioner to place the DNA report before the High Court so it can proceed in accordance with law. Only for the appearance and explanation of the Acting Director, AIIMS, the matter was kept on July 7.

On July 7, the Acting Director remained personally present before the Court. However, going through his "reply affidavit", the Court took a "strong view" of the fact that he had filed a "reply affidavit" instead of an "explanation". It was also noted from the "reply affidavit" that though an apology had been tendered, there was an attempt to justify the "contemptuous act" of not conducting the DNA test.

Ultimately, the Court allowed ASG Bhati to withdraw the "reply affidavit" and file an explanation. As the Acting Director had tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, his personal appearance was exempted for the time being.

During today's hearing, the Court was displeased to note that the Acting Director had filed an "affidavit" instead of an "explanation". Justice Amanullah remarked that the Acting Director seemed to have an "ego" problem and had raised a "confrontationist stance".

"We asked you for an Explanation. First time also you said reply. You are replying to us? Today also it says 'affidavit'. Are the ICS ashamed of using the word 'explanation'? When I indicated in the first and second orders...REJECTED. We are going to punish him in some way or the other. It had to be an 'explanation'. How dare you write 'affidavit'? It means it is only a reply. We understand this. And I am very particular about words used...so casual approach?", Justice Amanullah remarked.

Although ASG Bhati submitted before the Court that in her understanding, an explanation was to be tendered by way of an "affidavit" only, Justice Amanullah refused to accept the explanation.

Subsequently, however, the bench allowed the ASG to get the "affidavit" amended to say "explanation" and closed the matter while accepting the Acting Director's apology.

Case Title: PRATIBHA KASHYAP v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, Misc. Application No.16-17/2026