Acting Director Ordered to Appear Personally Before Apex Court on July 7
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to Dr. Nikhil Tandon, the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, for failing to comply with the court’s directive to personally file an affidavit in connection with an ongoing matrimonial dispute.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan expressed strong displeasure over the non-compliance and directed the Acting Director to appear in person before the court on July 7, 2026, along with a written explanation.
Court Objects to Affidavit Filed by Unauthorized AIIMS Official
The apex court noted that on April 16, it had specifically directed the AIIMS Director to submit an explanation through an affidavit. However, instead of the Director, an affidavit was filed by an individual claiming to be the Deputy Secretary of AIIMS, New Delhi.
Calling the action “most objectionable,” the bench observed that it was not within the discretion of any official to delegate the responsibility assigned directly by the court.
“We had specifically sought explanation to be furnished by the Director, AIIMS, and it is not within the discretion of any person to submit his/her explanation by authorising someone else to do the same,” the court remarked.
Supreme Court Rejects ‘Temporary Capacity’ Argument
During the hearing, the court was informed that AIIMS New Delhi currently does not have a permanent Director and that Dr. Nikhil Tandon is holding the position in an acting capacity.
The bench, however, rejected the explanation, stating that an individual occupying a post—whether permanently or temporarily—is fully responsible for performing the duties attached to that office.
The court said it was “surprised” and “shocked” by the submission that the Acting Director was not required to comply because he was serving only on a temporary basis.
Contempt Proceedings Initiated Against Acting Director
Observing that the Acting Director had failed to comply with its earlier order, the Supreme Court held a tentative view that contempt proceedings were warranted.
Accordingly, Dr. Nikhil Tandon was impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in the matter, and a formal contempt notice was issued against him. The court directed him to remain personally present on the next date of hearing and submit an explanation.
DNA Report Submitted by AIIMS Confirms Biological Paternity
The matrimonial case also involves a DNA analysis report prepared by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at AIIMS.
The report concluded that the DNA profile of the child matched the profiles of the parties involved in the case, confirming that the individual concerned is the biological father of the child.
The Supreme Court took the report on record while hearing the matter and is expected to further consider the findings during the next hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court’s order underscores that officials holding positions in an acting or temporary capacity are equally accountable for complying with judicial directions. The court’s decision to initiate contempt proceedings against the Acting Director of AIIMS highlights the judiciary’s strict approach toward non-compliance with its orders.
