The Supreme Court has closed the contempt proceedings against Dr. Nikhil Tandon, the Acting Director of AIIMS, New Delhi, after accepting his unconditional apology for failing to execute a court-mandated DNA test.

The matter arose from a matrimonial and paternity dispute involving the Petitioner-wife, Pratibha Kashyap, where the top court had redirected the venue of the DNA test to AIIMS to ensure utmost fairness.

The medical institute, however, failed to perform the test and cited the superannuation of its designated expert—an excuse the Bench strongly admonished as "absolutely untenable."

Following a stern warning regarding a previous contradictory reply affidavit, ASG Aishwarya Bhati submitted a fresh, unembellished explanation on July 9, 2026, noting that Dr. Tandon was on leave on the day the initial affidavit was filed.

Satisfied with the unconditional apology and the solemn assurance by the ASG that administrative measures will be taken to educate officials on court procedures, the Bench disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan observed, "...an unconditional apology has been tendered and it has been stated that because he was In-charge Director and was on leave on that day, he could not affirm the affidavit...We accept the apology and the issue stands closed...However, we have been assured by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG that there being lack of clarity among the officials with regard to how they should proceed in matters relating to the Court, appropriate measures will be taken so that in future no such error occurs on the part of the officials in matters relating to the Court."


AOR Surabhi Sanchita appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The matter originated from a matrimonial and paternity dispute between the Petitioner-wife, Pratibha Kashyap, and the Respondent No. 2-husband. The Allahabad High Court through its impugned judgment and orders, directed the formulation of a DNA test to safeguard the interests of the petitioner, while the main proceedings remained pending before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s orders

On October 14 2025, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the merits of the High Court's findings, but modified the venue of the DNA test. The Apex Court directed that the DNA test of the husband, wife, and child be conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to ensure utmost fairness and to eliminate extraneous influence.

Subsequently, a hitch arose when the DNA test could not be executed. A report filed on behalf of the AIIMS authorities indicated that the designated expert/personnel responsible for conducting the DNA test had superannuated, rendering the institution unable to perform the test.

Aggrieved by this non-compliance, Miscellaneous Applications were preferred before the Supreme Court, which impleaded the Director, AIIMS as Respondent No. 3 and sought an explanation.

On July 7 2026, the Acting Director of AIIMS, Dr. Nikhil Tandon, appeared personally before the Court and filed a reply affidavit, which simultaneously tendered an apology and offered justifications for the non-compliance.

During the subsequent contempt proceedings, Dr. Nikhil Tandon, the Acting Director of AIIMS (impleaded as Respondent No. 4), personally appeared and tendered an unconditional apology for the lapses committed by the institute's authorities. However, the reply affidavit filed on his behalf sought to justify the administrative impasse.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the respondent-authorities, conceded the gravity of the lapse, sought indulgence from the Bench, and prayed for permission to withdraw the controversial reply affidavit in order to submit a fresh, unembellished explanation.

At the final hearing on July 9 2026, ASG Aishwarya Bhati appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4, submitted a fresh explanation affidavit. She contended that an unconditional apology was being tendered for the procedural lapse. She further submitted that because Respondent No. 4 was the In-charge Director and happened to be on leave on that specific day, he was prevented from affirming the affidavit personally.

The ASG further assured the Bench that appropriate measures would be implemented to educate the officials and clear any lack of clarity regarding court procedures to prevent such errors in the future.

Observations of the Court

In its order dated April 16 2026, the Bench strongly admonished the administrative stance taken by AIIMS. The Court observed that the plea of superannuation of a staff member was "absolutely untenable".

The Bench noted that the Director, being fully aware of the legal gravity and importance of the court-mandated DNA test, ought to have approached the Apex Court to seek permission to engage the services of the superannuated expert, instead of discovering administrative excuses to evade judicial directions.

Vide order dated July 7 2026, the Court took a very stern view of the conduct of the Acting Director of AIIMS.
The Court observed that filing a standard reply affidavit instead of a direct personal explanation amounted to an improper approach when an explanation was explicitly called for.

The Bench further observed that the affidavit was highly contradictory, as it textually tendered an apology while simultaneously attempting to justify an act that was visibly contemptuous and "in the teeth of the order of this Court.

"Though this Court had directed him to be personally present along with his explanation today, a reply affidavit on his behalf has been filed. The Court takes a strong view to such conduct also. When an explanation was asked for, he has only filed a reply affidavit...Dr. Tandon has personally explained his position and has tendered unconditional apology for the conduct of the authorities of AIIMS...Even coming to the reply affidavit filed by him, we find that on the one hand he has tendered apology but in the same breath, some justification has also been given in the said reply affidavit for committing such contemptuous act which was clearly in the teeth of the order of this Court"
, the Court ordered.

Nonetheless, granting extraordinary indulgence upon the request of the ASG, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the defective affidavit, ordered the matter to be listed on July 9 2026, and dispensed with the personal appearance of the Acting Director for the time being in light of his physical, unqualified apology.

Finally, in its latest order dated July 9 2026, the Supreme Court perused the fresh explanation affidavit and noted the unconditional apology tendered by Respondent No. 4.

The Bench accepted the explanation regarding the In-charge Director's leave and formally accepted the unconditional apology, thereby closing the contempt issue.

The Court further took note of the solemn assurance extended by the learned ASG that structural and administrative measures would be taken to address the lack of clarity among officials regarding court matters, ensuring no such errors recur on the part of the officials in the future.

Consequently, the Bench disposed of the Miscellaneous Applications and all pending applications.

Cause Title: Pratibha Kashyap v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Miscellaneous Application Nos.16-17/2026 in SLP(Crl) Nos. 16815- 16816/2025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: AOR Surabhi Sanchita

Respondents: ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AORS Ankit Goel, Anil Kumar, Vikrant Vasudeva

Tags: