Why such a casual attitude? Supreme Court pulls up AIIMS acting director for submitting affidavit instead of clarification

New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently expressed shock after the acting director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) New Delhi, failed to submit the explanation it had sought and instead filed an affidavit in a case related to a delay in conducting a DNA test, questioning the 'casual attitude' towards its directions.

While the court initially decided to issue a contempt notice, it dropped the move after the acting director submitted an unconditional apology within an hour.

Expressing disappointment that the court's order had not been properly followed despite repeated opportunities, the division bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan stated that they had specifically asked the acting director to personally provide clarification, but instead an affidavit was filed on behalf of AIIMS.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Supreme Court had issued a contempt notice to the acting director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and directed him to appear in person and provide an explanation in the case.

The case is related to a DNA paternity dispute pending before the Supreme Court. On April 16, 2026, the court had made the AIIMS director a respondent and directed him to explain how the institute had complied with its earlier directions regarding DNA testing.

When the matter was heard on May 27, the court found that instead of the director personally responding, an affidavit had been filed by the AIIMS deputy secretary, who claimed he was authorised to do so. The bench held that its order specifically required the director's personal clarification and that the responsibility could not be delegated to another official.

During the hearing, Justice Amanullah questioned why the court's clear direction had not been followed and said the bench was "shocked" by the casual approach shown in the matter. The court also observed that the acting director's response reflected a confrontational attitude.

Justice Amanullah remarked orally,

"I asked for clarification. But an affidavit was filed anyway. Then I passed another order... You have written the affidavit again. What's wrong? Why such a casual attitude? We are shocked."

The judge further said,

"Another affidavit has been filed today and the fourth respondent (acting director) has adopted a confrontational attitude towards the court and it seems that he has some ego problem. A contempt notice has been issued against him and a show-cause notice will remain in force as to why the court should not pass appropriate orders against him."

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the respondents, argued that AIIMS had understood the earlier order to mean that an affidavit needed to be filed. However, the bench rejected this explanation, saying its direction was clear and that it had sought a personal clarification, not another affidavit.

"There is no misunderstanding or anything like that. Tell him to come here before the court rises at 1 pm, otherwise this order will remain in place. The reply (from the AIIMS acting director) should have been a clarification... What is an affidavit? 'Clarification' means you are on the back foot and you have to explain. Leave your ego at home," Justice Amanullah remarked as reported by Bar and Bench.

Within an hour, the acting director submitted an unconditional apology. The Supreme Court accepted the apology after being informed that he was not personally present when the affidavit was filed.

The court recorded, "An unconditional apology has been tendered. We accept the same as it has been stated that he was not present at the time of filing the affidavit. It is assured that no such mistake will be committed by the AIIMS officials in any further court related matters."

Since the Acting Director tendered the apology and the DNA test had already been completed, the Supreme Court decided not to proceed with contempt proceedings and closed the matter.

Also read- Supreme Court issues contempt notice to acting AIIMS director over non-filing of affidavit