Supreme Court slams Maneka Gandhi over remarks on stray dogs case, flags possible contempt

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria said it was only due to the court’s “magnanimity” that it had chosen not to initiate contempt proceedings against her.

The bench made it clear that its earlier observations on holding dog feeders responsible for stray dog attacks were made “very seriously” and not in a sarcastic tone.

Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was appearing for Gandhi, the court said, “Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance of that. That is our magnanimity. Have you heard her podcast? What is her body language? What she says and how she says.”

The bench also questioned the contradiction between the defence’s plea for judicial restraint and Gandhi’s public statements.

“On one hand, you say the court should be circumspect. On the other hand, your client is making all sorts of comments on anybody and anything she likes,” the judges observed.

Ramachandran declined to comment on the court’s observations, noting that the matter before the bench was not a contempt hearing.

During the exchange, he mentioned having appeared for 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab, prompting Justice Nath to respond, “Kasab had not committed contempt.”

As arguments continued, the court questioned Gandhi’s contribution to addressing the stray dog problem.

Referring to her long-standing activism and tenure as a Union minister, the bench asked what role she had played in securing budgetary allocations or strengthening implementation of schemes related to rabies control and animal sterilisation.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that effective sterilisation reduces aggression among stray dogs but is poorly implemented across most cities.

He cautioned that certain court observations could have unintended consequences, suggesting that remarks about holding dog feeders responsible might be perceived as sarcastic.

Justice Nath firmly rejected the suggestion. “No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously,” he said.

Bhushan responded that dog feeders were being attacked on the ground, with assailants citing the court’s remarks.

The bench noted that these comments were made orally during the course of arguments. When Ramachandran pointed out that court proceedings are televised and carry wider impact, the judges replied, “Because of this only, we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks.”

The issue of stray dog attacks has been under close scrutiny by the court. During a hearing last week, the bench had said it would consider directing state governments to pay heavy compensation in cases where stray dog attacks cause death or serious injury to children or the elderly.

It has also raised questions about accountability, asking why animal lovers do not take responsibility for dogs they feed instead of allowing them to roam freely and pose risks to the public.

The sharp observations underline the court’s growing concern over public safety amid rising incidents of stray dog attacks, even as it navigates the sensitivities surrounding animal welfare and free speech.