Stray dog case: SC raps Maneka Gandhi
Coming down heavily on animal activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court on Tuesday flagged her “body language” and remarks on the court’s observations in the stray dogs case during a podcast saying she has committed contempt of court. However, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria said it is not initiating contempt of court proceedings against Gandhi because of the court’s magnanimity.
The bench said the former minister has made “all kinds of comments” against everyone without even thinking. The bench also said it was serious and not sarcastic when it spoke of making dog feeders responsible for stray dog attacks.During the hearing, the Bench questioned senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, on whether he had reviewed his client’s statements
Questioning senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, the bench said, “A little while ago you were telling the court we should be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making? Have you heard her podcast?” “She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking. Have you seen her body language? What she says and how she says. Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance because of the court’s magnanimity,” it said.
Ramachandran replied that it was not a contempt matter and politicians do make different statements. He said he has even appeared on behalf of 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack convict Ajmal Kasab and that in the instant matter was only putting forth his client’s plea.Ramachandran was a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae to represent Kasab in his appeal against the death sentence. Justice Nath remarked, “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has.”
Ramachandran said that lawyers and judges will be on different planes when it comes to public comments and sought permission to argue the intervention application filed by Gandhi.
Justice Mehta told Ramachandran, “Since your client has been a minister and is a well known animal rights activist and has been a parliamentarian for long. Tell us why your application is silent on the budgetary allocation which has been made due to her. What has been the contribution of your client to these problems.”Ramachandran said he cannot answer this question orally but budgetary allocation is a policy decision. During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the intervenors in the matter, pointed out that sterilisation has not been effective in some cities while in some like Lucknow and Goa, it has been effective.Justice Mehta pointed out that sterilisation aspects have been argued by other parties and the court cannot ask the dogs to have a sterilisation certificate. Bhushan said, “This court has been making some comments during the hearing which is perfectly normal. But some comments may have some repercussions. Like the court made a sarcastic comment that dog feeders will be held accountable for the dog bite.”
Justice Nath said that the court has not made that comment sarcastically but on a serious note. “Although, we don’t know what we will do in this matter but that comment was not made sarcastically but on a serious note although made in a dialogue during the hearing,” Justice Nath said.Bhushan said that all he was saying was that these comments of the court get misinterpreted and may have some repercussions as after the court’s remark, some dog feeders were beaten up. Ramachandran at this juncture intervened and said that since it was a televised hearing, the court and the bar should be circumspect in its remarks.
The bench said, “We are restraining ourselves from making comments which would have otherwise been made in the matter.” The bench heard several lawyers and litigants seeking modification of November 7, 2025 order of the apex court.Gandhi has earlier criticised the apex court orders calling them impractical and called for compassion. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 28 saying that it will hear different states on that day.
The bench heard a clutch of petitions and interventions on the growing stray dog menace, with lawyers and activists presenting sharply diverging views on accountability for dog bites, efficacy of sterilisation drives, and enforcement gaps in India’s animal birth control regime. The proceedings saw multiple counsels stress that the issue can no longer be treated as a mere civic inconvenience, with petitioners pointing to fatal incidents, systemic negligence in medical response, and a perceived lack of ownership among municipal bodies.
