Supreme Court initiates contempt proceedings against AIIMS Delhi Acting Director, orders appearance on 7 July
Synopsis
The Supreme Court didn't just reprimand AIIMS Delhi — it initiated contempt proceedings against its Acting Director after the institution sent a deputy secretary to file an affidavit instead of complying with a specific judicial order. The bench's ruling that acting officeholders bear full institutional responsibility, without exception, sets a sharp precedent for how courts will treat interim leadership at public institutions.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Dr Nikhil Tandon , Acting Director of AIIMS, New Delhi , on 5 June 2026 .
The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R.
Mahadevan had directed the AIIMS Director to personally file an explanation on 16 April ; a deputy secretary filed instead.
The court rejected AIIMS's argument that there was no permanent Director, holding that acting officeholders carry full responsibility.
A DNA analysis report from AIIMS confirmed Bimal Kishore as the biological father in the underlying case; related miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
Dr Nikhil Tandon must appear personally before the Supreme Court on 7 July 2026 at 12 noon with his explanation.
The Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against Dr Nikhil Tandon, Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, after expressing shock over the institution's failure to comply with a specific judicial direction requiring its head to personally submit an explanation in a matter involving a DNA test report. The court has ordered Dr Tandon to appear in person on 7 July 2026 at 12 noon.
What Triggered the Contempt Notice
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan had on 16 April specifically directed the Director of AIIMS to personally furnish an explanation. Instead, an affidavit was filed by one Nishant Kumar, claiming to be Deputy Secretary at AIIMS, New Delhi, as an authorised officer — a substitution the bench described as the 'most objectionable part' of the response.
'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 Justice Amanullah-led bench observed.
Court Rejects AIIMS Explanation on Vacancy
Counsel for AIIMS submitted that there was currently no permanent Director at the institution, with the previous Director having demitted office approximately two to three weeks prior, and that the present incumbent was holding charge only in a temporary capacity. The bench rejected this explanation outright, stating it was 'not only surprised but shocked' by the 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,' the apex court said. The court added that it was not inclined to extend any benefit of doubt to the current head of the institution and held that, prima facie, the Acting Director had committed contempt.
Key Findings on the DNA Report
On the merits of the underlying case, the bench took note of a DNA analysis report submitted by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi. The report concluded that the DNA profile of the individual in question matched with those of Bimal Kishore and Pratibha Kashyap, establishing that Bimal Kishore is the biological father. In view of these findings, the apex court disposed of the miscellaneous applications pending before it, holding that they no longer required adjudication.
Directions and What Happens Next
The Supreme Court directed that copies of the DNA report be supplied to the parties concerned, and ordered that the original report be handed over to the petitioner's counsel for transmission to the petitioner. The bench further directed the petitioner's counsel to place the DNA report before the concerned High Court, which will thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
The matter will remain listed before the apex court on 7 July 2026 solely for the personal appearance of Dr Nikhil Tandon and consideration of his response to the contempt notice. This case underscores the Supreme Court's firm position that acting or interim officeholders bear full institutional responsibility and cannot delegate court-directed personal obligations.
Point of View
A premier public institution directly under the Union government, allowed a procedural misstep of this magnitude to reach contempt territory. The court's ruling that 'acting capacity' carries full legal responsibility has implications well beyond this case — it closes a loophole that public institutions have occasionally exploited to defer accountability during leadership transitions. Whether this prompts the Centre to expedite the appointment of a permanent AIIMS Director remains the more consequential question.
NationPress
6 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the AIIMS Delhi Acting Director?
The Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to AIIMS Delhi Acting Director Dr Nikhil Tandon because the institution failed to comply with a specific court direction from 16 April requiring the Director to personally submit an explanation in a case involving a DNA test report. Instead, a deputy secretary filed an affidavit, which the bench found unacceptable.
Who is Dr Nikhil Tandon and what is his role at AIIMS Delhi?
Dr Nikhil Tandon is the Acting Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, holding charge in a temporary capacity after the previous Director demitted office. The Supreme Court has impleaded him as a party respondent in the contempt proceedings.
What did the Supreme Court say about acting officeholders?
The court ruled that any person holding a post — whether in a substantive or acting capacity — must take full responsibility and perform all duties of that post. It held that it was not within anyone's discretion to delegate a court-directed personal explanation to another officer.
What is the DNA report at the centre of the case?
The DNA analysis report, submitted by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at AIIMS, New Delhi, concluded that the DNA profile of the individual in question matched with those of Bimal Kishore and Pratibha Kashyap, establishing Bimal Kishore as the biological father. Based on this finding, the Supreme Court disposed of the miscellaneous applications pending before it.
What happens at the 7 July 2026 hearing?
On 7 July 2026 at 12 noon, Dr Nikhil Tandon must appear personally before the Supreme Court with his explanation in response to the contempt notice. The matter will be listed solely for his appearance and the court's consideration of his response.
