Stray Dogs Case: Supreme Court Takes Exception to Maneka Gandhi’s Criticism, Flags Contempt

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria expressed clear displeasure over Gandhi’s comments made in public forums, including a podcast, where she criticised the judiciary’s approach to stray dog regulation.

Questioning Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, the Bench said the former minister had made sweeping and irresponsible remarks without restraint.

“You said the court should be circumspect in its remarks, but have you asked your client what kind of remarks she has made? Have you heard her podcast? She has made all kinds of comments against everybody without even thinking. Have you seen her body language?” the Bench remarked.

The Court noted that although Gandhi’s statements prima facie constituted contempt, it was refraining from initiating contempt proceedings purely out of magnanimity.

Justice Sandeep Mehta went a step further, asking Ramachandran what concrete steps or budgetary allocations Gandhi had facilitated during her tenure as a Union minister to address the stray dog menace.

In response, Ramachandran submitted that budgetary allocation was a policy matter and pointed out that he had even appeared for convicted terrorist Ajmal Kasab in the past.

That remark drew a sharp response from the Bench.

“Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court, but your client has,” Justice Vikram Nath retorted.

The Bench also clarified that its earlier observations on making dog feeders accountable were not made sarcastically, but were serious comments made during an active dialogue while hearing the matter.

The Court reiterated that the issue of stray dogs and dog bites was a matter of grave public concern, particularly in light of the continued failure of authorities to implement statutory norms.

The Court had adjourned the matter for hearing the submissions of all the States/Union Territories on January 28 at 2PM.

Earlier, on January 13, the Supreme Court had indicated that it may direct states to pay “heavy compensation” in cases of dog bite incidents and had flagged that norms relating to stray animals have not been implemented for nearly five years. The Court had indicated that it may soon fix liability on state authorities and dog feeders for injuries and deaths caused by stray dog attacks, as the long-running Stray Dogs case. After three days of intense hearings last week, the Bench continued examining the issue of stray dogs in institutional premises and the failure of municipal bodies to effectively implement sterilization and control measures.

Previously, the Bench had examined the issue of stray dogs in institutional and residential premises, with intervenors seeking modifications to the Court’s earlier directions. They urged that stray dogs be released in the same area after sterilization and suggested adopting scientific and humane population control models capable of curbing dog-bite incidents within a few years. On the other hand, victims’ groups had pressed for the removal of strays from housing societies, citing increasing cases of dog attacks and concerns about safety in residential areas.