NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over an affidavit that was not filed by the acting director of AIIMS in his personal capacity, observing that it was not the explanation sought by the court in a pending DNA paternity test case. The court had, at the previous hearing, sought a specific explanation from the acting director in his personal capacity.
During the hearing, the court expressed disappointment after examining the affidavit, following which the acting director tendered an unconditional apology.
Accepting the apology, the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against him.
“Unconditional apology has been tendered. We accept the same as it is stated he was not there when the affidavit was filed. It is assured that no such further error occurs on the part of authorities of AIIMS in matters related to court,” the court recorded.
The matter concerns a DNA paternity dispute pending before the Supreme Court. On April 16, 2026, the court had impleaded the AIIMS director as a respondent and directed him to furnish an explanation regarding compliance with its directions in connection with a DNA test conducted by the institute.
During Thursday’s hearing, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said it was “shocked” by the manner in which its earlier directions had been ignored despite repeated opportunities.
Justice Amanullah questioned senior law officer Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the acting director, over the filing of the affidavit despite the court’s earlier order.
“Then I passed another order... Again you have written affidavit. What is wrong, Ms Bhati? Why so casual? We are shocked,” the court observed. The apex court, however, accepted the unconditional apology and decided not to proceed with contempt action against the acting director.
Also in court
Chitra Ramkrishna’s prosecution upheld
The Delhi High Court upheld the prosecution of former National Stock Exchange CEO Chitra Ramkrishna under the Prevention of Corruption Act, holding that the NSE performs a public duty. A bench of Justices Ravinder Dudeja and Navin Chawla rejected Chitra’s claim that the NSE was a private company, provisions relating to public servants could not apply to her.