The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi for her public remarks criticising the apex court’s observations in the stray dog menace case, observing that she had committed contempt of court.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria rebuked Gandhi for allegedly making sweeping and derogatory comments against the court and other stakeholders during a podcast. The court remarked that her statements reflected a lack of restraint and were made “without even thinking.”
“You said the court should be circumspect in its remark, but have you asked your client what kind of remarks she has made?” the bench asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared on behalf of Gandhi. “Have you heard her podcast? She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking. Have you seen her body language?”
Despite the court’s strong words, it clarified that contempt proceedings would not be initiated against Gandhi, citing the court’s “magnanimity.”
Justice Mehta further questioned the former minister’s contribution to addressing the stray dog crisis, specifically asking Ramachandran, “What budgetary allocation has Maneka Gandhi, as a former Union minister, helped in getting to eradicate the stray dog problem?”
In response, Ramachandran noted that budgetary matters fall under government policy and are not the responsibility of an individual. He also defended his appearance, mentioning that he had earlier represented convicted terrorist Ajmal Kasab.
This prompted Justice Nath to sharply observe, “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court, but your client has.”
The court also clarified that its earlier comments on making dog feeders accountable were not sarcastic but made in all seriousness during deliberations on the matter.
The ongoing proceedings stem from a series of petitions and concerns over increasing incidents of dog bites and the long-standing failure of authorities to implement guidelines for managing stray dog populations. On January 13, the court had said it may direct states to pay “heavy compensation” for such incidents and hinted at holding dog feeders legally responsible.
The issue of stray dog attacks has become a matter of growing concern across the country, with several incidents of serious injuries and deaths reported in recent years. Despite the Supreme Court’s earlier directions, there has been little progress in establishing robust mechanisms for controlling the stray animal population and ensuring public safety.
The court is expected to continue hearing the matter in the coming days.
