The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on animal activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi over her 'body language' and remarks on the court's observations in the stray dogs case during a podcast. The Apex Court also expressed strong displeasure at remarks made by her, criticising its earlier orders on the stray dog issue, observing that she had “committed contempt of court”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, while hearing the ongoing matter, said Gandhi had made sweeping comments without due consideration and appeared to have attacked “everyone” in the process. The judges, however, said they were not initiating contempt proceedings against her, citing the court’s “magnanimity”.
During the hearing, the bench questioned senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who represented Gandhi, on whether he had listened to her podcast and noted her “body language”. Justice Nath told counsel that while he had asked the court to be circumspect in its remarks, Gandhi’s own statements were far from restrained. The bench said she had made “all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking”, indicating a pattern of irresponsible commentary.
Justice Mehta also asked what steps Gandhi had taken, as a former Union minister, to ensure adequate budgetary allocation or policy support to address the stray dog problem. In response, Ramachandran said budgetary allocation was a policy matter and added that he had previously represented even Ajmal Kasab, the convicted terrorist in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The bench responded sharply. “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has,” Justice Nath remarked.
As the debate On Stray Dogs continued, the bench clarified that its previous remark on holding dog feeders accountable was not sarcastic but made seriously during an exchange in court. The hearing remains underway.On January 13, the Supreme Court had indicated it may direct states to pay heavy compensation in cases of dog bite incidents and said it would consider holding dog feeders accountable in such situations. The bench had also flagged non-implementation of prescribed stray animal norms for the past five years, raising concerns over regulatory failure and public safety.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that sterilisation helps reduce aggression among stray dogs, but said that effective sterilisation programmes are not being implemented in most cities. He added that the court’s observations can sometimes have unintended consequences. “For instance, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was said sarcastically,” Bhushan said.
Follow us
