New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has issued a contempt notice to Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Acting Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, after finding that the institution persistently failed to comply with its directions in a matrimonial dispute involving a court-ordered DNA paternity test.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan.
The case arises from a matrimonial dispute where the Court ordered a DNA test of the parties and the child born to them. It directed AIIMS to conduct the DNA test, but a report was filed stating that the person in charge of conducting the test had retired and therefore the test could not be performed.
By a prior order dated April 16, 2026, the Court had impleaded the Director of AIIMS as party respondent no. 3 and directed him to submit his personal explanation. When the matter was listed on May 27, 2026, an affidavit purportedly filed in compliance with the Court’s order was found to have been submitted not by the Director but by Nishant Kumar, who described himself as Deputy Secretary, AIIMS, New Delhi, authorised by the institution to file the affidavit.
The Bench expressed strong displeasure at this response. The Court observed that it had specifically sought an explanation from the Director of AIIMS and that it was not within the discretion of any person to substitute his or her own explanation by authorising someone else to file it in their place.
When the counsel for the respondent submitted that there is currently no permanent Director at AIIMS, New Delhi, the Court enquired when the previous Director had demitted office. The response was that it had been approximately two to three weeks prior. On being asked further why the person presently holding charge of the Director had not filed the explanation, the answer offered was that he holds only a temporary charge.
The Bench recorded that it was not merely surprised but shocked at this response. The Court held that any person occupying a post, whether in a substantive or acting capacity, is obligated to take responsibility and discharge the duties of that post in whatever capacity it may be held. The Court declared it would not extend the benefit of doubt to the Acting Director on grounds of ignorance and took the tentative view that Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Acting Director, AIIMS, New Delhi, had committed contempt of Court.
Dr. Nikhil Tandon was accordingly impleaded as party respondent no. 4 and a contempt notice was issued against him. The Court directed that he shall be personally present before the Bench on July 7, 2026, at 12 noon along with his explanation, treating the matter as part-heard.
On merits, the Court noted that a report dated May 18, 2026, had in the meantime been submitted by the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi, reporting the outcome of the DNA test. The report confirmed that the DNA profile of the child, Ansh Kashyap, matched the DNA profiles of Bimal Kishore and Pratibha Kashyap, establishing that Bimal Kishore is the biological father of the child.
In view of the DNA report having been submitted, the Court disposed of the two miscellaneous applications. It directed the Registry to retain a copy of the DNA report on record and to furnish copies to the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh and for respondent no. 2. The original report was directed to be handed over to the counsel for the petitioner, Pratibha Kashyap, who was in turn directed to hand it over to the petitioner and file proof of having done so before the next date. The counsel for the petitioner was also directed to place a copy of the DNA report before the High Court, which shall then proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Ms. Surabhi Sanchita appeared as Advocate on Record for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Goel, AoR, Mr. Sahil Kapoor, Mr. Anil Kumar, AoR, Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Mr. Dhruv Singh, Mr. Pradeepkumar R, Mr. B. Shenbagam, Mr. Sudip Patra, Ms. Santosh, and Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AoR, appeared for the respondents.
Case Title: Pratibha Kashyap v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Miscellaneous Application Nos. 16-17/2026 in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 16815-16816/2025).
