The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, for failing to comply with its earlier judicial directions in a pending DNA paternity dispute, observing that his conduct prima facie warranted initiation of contempt proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan, however, refrained from issuing a contempt notice after the Acting Director tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology.
The Apex Court expressed serious dissatisfaction after finding that the Acting Director had once again failed to furnish the personal explanation specifically directed by the Court regarding non-compliance with its earlier orders relating to the conduct of a DNA test.
The Bench noted that despite its previous directions, the Acting Director had submitted another affidavit instead of filing the explanation sought by the Court in his personal capacity. The Court observed that its orders had not been complied with despite repeated opportunities and described the approach adopted by the AIIMS authorities as casual and inconsistent with the obligation of public officials to strictly adhere to judicial directions.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the respondents, Justice Amanullah questioned why the Court’s explicit directions had once again been disregarded. The Bench sought an explanation for repeatedly filing affidavits instead of the personal explanation specifically mandated in its earlier orders.
The Court further observed that the Acting Director’s response reflected a confrontational attitude towards the judicial process. Taking serious exception to the repeated non-compliance, the Bench initially directed issuance of a show-cause notice in contempt and required the Acting Director to explain why proceedings under the law relating to civil contempt should not be initiated against him for wilful disobedience of the Court’s orders.
When the Additional Solicitor General submitted that the respondents had understood the Court’s earlier direction to require an affidavit, the Bench rejected the explanation, observing that its earlier orders were clear and unambiguous. The Court emphasised that what had been sought was a personal explanation from the Acting Director and not merely another affidavit filed on behalf of the institution.
The Bench also directed that if the lapse was not immediately rectified, the Acting Director should remain personally present before the Court before it rose for the day. It observed that public authorities entrusted with implementing judicial directions are expected to comply with them in both letter and spirit and cannot adopt a technical or procedural approach to avoid personal accountability.
The proceedings arose from a DNA paternity dispute in which the Supreme Court had earlier directed AIIMS to conduct a DNA test. Although the substantive direction has since been complied with and the DNA report has been placed before the Court, the Bench retained the issue relating to the Acting Director’s explanation after finding repeated procedural non-compliance with its earlier directions.
The matter took a different turn later in the day when the Acting Director appeared before the Court and tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology. Taking note of the apology, the Bench permitted the amendment of the document by substituting the description “affidavit” with “explanation” and decided not to proceed with contempt action.
While closing the proceedings, the Court recorded the Acting Director’s clarification that he was not personally present when the impugned affidavit had been filed. It also placed on record the assurance given by the Additional Solicitor General that appropriate institutional measures would be taken to ensure that AIIMS officials properly understand and comply with judicial directions in future and that no similar procedural lapses would recur in matters pending before constitutional courts.
The post Supreme Court pulls up AIIMS Acting Director over non-compliance, drops contempt proceedings after unconditional apology appeared first on India Legal.