‘Have You Even Heard Her Podcast?’: Supreme Court Raps Maneka Gandhi Over Stray Dog Remarks

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised animal rights activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for her public comments opposing the apex court’s orders in a case related to stray dogs. The court said her remarks fell within the scope of “contempt”, but added that it would not pursue contempt proceedings “out of its magnanimity”.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that it was the court’s “greatness” that it had chosen not to initiate contempt action against Gandhi. The judges also questioned what concrete steps she had taken to secure “budgetary allocation” to address the stray dog menace.

‘This Is Not a Joke’

The bench noted that when it had earlier said that people feeding stray dogs could be held responsible for dog attacks, it was making a serious point, not a casual remark.

During the hearing, the court sharply addressed Gandhi’s counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran.

“Just a short while ago, you were telling this court that we should be cautious. Have you checked what kind of comments your client is making? Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance of it. That is our greatness. Have you heard her podcast? What is her body language? What is she saying and how is she saying it?” the bench said.

The judges added, “On one hand, you say the court should be careful. On the other hand, your client is making all kinds of remarks about anyone and everyone.”

Ramachandran declined to comment on the court’s observations, saying the matter before the bench was not a contempt hearing. At one point, he mentioned that he had earlier appeared for 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab. Justice Nath responded bluntly, “Kasab did not commit contempt.”

Court Raises Question of Accountability

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had reviewed the growing problem of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR following a rise in dog-bite incidents. The bench stressed that public safety must come first, especially in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals and railway stations.

The court also underlined that people who feed stray dogs must act responsibly and raised a crucial question: if a dog attacks someone, who should be held accountable? It suggested that those who wish to care for dogs should keep them as licensed pets instead of allowing them to roam freely.

What Maneka Gandhi Had Said

Last year, the Supreme Court had directed that stray dogs be removed from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals and bus and railway stations. It also ruled that after sterilisation, the dogs should not be returned to the same localities.

Criticising this order, Maneka Gandhi had called it “as bad as, or even worse than” Justice Pardiwala’s decision and said it was impractical to implement.

“It cannot be implemented. If 5,000 dogs are removed, where will you keep them? You need 50 shelters, but you don’t have them. You need people to pick them up. What difference will removing 5,000 dogs make? If there are eight lakh dogs here, what will change by removing 5,000? The question is, if it were possible, it would have been done by now,” she had said.

The court’s sharp remarks highlight its growing impatience with public criticism of judicial orders, even as concerns over stray dogs and public safety continue to intensify in urban centres.