The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Acting Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for failing to comply with its earlier directions in a DNA paternity case.

The Court was on the verge of initiating contempt proceedings but decided against it after the Acting Director appeared before the Bench and tendered an unconditional apology.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed displeasure over the manner in which its directions had been handled. The Court had earlier directed the Acting Director to personally explain AIIMS' compliance with its orders. Instead, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the institute.

"This is not what we had asked for," the Bench remarked, observing that despite repeated opportunities, its directions had not been followed.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the respondents, Justice Amanullah questioned why the Court's orders had not been taken seriously.

"I sought an explanation. But still an affidavit has been filed. Then I passed another order... Again you have written affidavit. What is wrong, Ms Bhati? Why so casual? We are shocked."

The Bench also took exception to the stand adopted by the Acting Director, observing that it appeared confrontational.

"Another affidavit is filed today and respondent no. 4 (Acting Director) has taken a stand which is confrontational to the Court and seems to have some ego issues. Notice in contempt is issued against him... why this Court should not pass appropriate orders," Justice Amanullah said.

When Bhati submitted that the respondents had understood the Court's earlier order to mean that an affidavit had to be filed, the Bench rejected the explanation.

"No understanding and all. Ask him to come here before we rise at 1 PM. If not, then this order shall stand. The reply should have been an explanation on behalf of the Acting Director... What is the affidavit? 'Explain' means you are on the back foot and you have to explain. Leave ego at home," Justice Amanullah observed.

Soon afterwards, the Acting Director appeared before the Court and offered an unconditional apology. Accepting it, the Bench decided not to proceed with contempt action.

Recording its order, the Court said:

"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 dispute arises out of a DNA paternity case pending before the Supreme Court. On April 16 this year, the Court had impleaded the AIIMS Director as a respondent and directed him to personally explain compliance with its directions concerning a DNA test conducted by the institute.

However, when the matter was taken up on May 27, the Bench found that the explanation had been submitted through an affidavit filed by the AIIMS Deputy Secretary, who claimed to have been authorised by the Director. The Court had made it clear that a direction addressed to the Director could not be complied with through another officer.

Finding that the same lapse had been repeated even after its earlier observations, the Bench initially decided to initiate contempt proceedings. It ultimately chose not to do so after accepting the Acting Director's apology and his assurance that such lapses would not recur.