The Supreme Court expressed serious displeasure over former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi’s remarks on its stray dog observations, stating that her comments amounted to contempt of court, though no proceedings were initiated due to judicial restraint.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised animal rights activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for her public criticism of the apex court’s observations in the ongoing stray dog menace case, remarking that her statements amounted to contempt of court.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria expressed strong displeasure over Gandhi’s remarks made during a podcast, particularly questioning her tone, conduct, and body language while commenting on judicial proceedings.
Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared on behalf of Maneka Gandhi, the Bench said:
“You say the court should be circumspect, but have you heard what kind of remarks your client has made? She has committed contempt of court. We are not taking cognisance of it—that is our magnanimity.”
Justice Mehta further questioned Gandhi’s role as a former Union Minister, asking what budgetary allocations or policy initiatives she had supported to address the stray dog problem during her tenure.
When Ramachandran responded that budgetary allocation was a policy matter and mentioned that he had earlier appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, Justice Nath sharply retorted:
“Kasab did not commit contempt of court, but your client has.”
The Bench clarified that its earlier observations about holding dog feeders accountable for stray dog attacks were made seriously and not sarcastically, even though they arose during an oral dialogue with counsel.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had indicated that it may direct state governments to pay heavy compensation in cases of death or injury caused by stray dog attacks, particularly involving children and elderly persons. The court had also stressed fixing responsibility on those who feed stray dogs in public places.
“If you love these animals so much, why don’t you take them to your house?”
the Bench had remarked during an earlier hearing.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that stray dog sterilisation reduces aggression but has not been effectively implemented across cities. He cautioned that oral observations from the court could sometimes lead to unintended consequences, including attacks on dog feeders.
Responding to this, the Bench stated that such remarks were part of oral exchanges and not formal judicial directions, adding that the court was exercising restraint despite the remarks being widely televised.
The Supreme Court also flagged the non-implementation of stray animal control norms for the last five years and expressed concern over administrative apathy in dealing with the growing menace of stray dog attacks across the country.
The matter remains under active consideration, with the court expected to issue further directions on rabies control, sterilisation programmes, accountability mechanisms, and victim compensation.
READ ATTACHMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs