“If You Love These Animals, Take Them Home”: Supreme Court Raps Maneka Gandhi Over Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply criticised animal activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi over remarks she made during a podcast on the ongoing stray dogs case, flagging both her comments and what it described as her "body language". The court said it had shown restraint despite believing that her statements crossed the line.

Court Flags Podcast Remarks And Warns Of Contempt

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria said it was only due to the court's "magnanimity" that contempt proceedings were not initiated against Gandhi. The judges underlined that the court had been serious, not sarcastic, when it earlier spoke about fixing responsibility on dog feeders in cases of stray dog attacks.

Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, 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? 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 court added, "You made a comment that the court should be circumspect. On the other hand, your client is making all sorts of comments on anybody and anything she likes."

Lawyer Declines Comment, Court Responds Sharply

Ramachandran declined to comment on the court's observations, stating that the matter was not a contempt hearing. During the exchange, he referred to having appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, prompting a pointed response from Justice Nath: "Kasab had not committed contempt."

The senior advocate then shifted focus to issues such as rabies control, the availability of vaccines and the need for trained professionals to deal with stray dog attacks. The bench, however, questioned Gandhi's role in policy implementation, saying, "Since your client is an animal rights activist, she was a cabinet minister etc, what are the contributions of your client to the budgetary allocations for implementing these schemes?"

Debate Over Sterilisation And Feeders' Safety

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that sterilisation reduces aggression among stray dogs but claimed that effective sterilisation programmes are missing in most cities. He also cautioned that some court observations could lead to unintended consequences.

"For example, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic," Bhushan said. Justice Nath rejected this interpretation, replying, "No, we didn't make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously."

Bhushan responded that dog feeders were facing attacks, with perpetrators citing the court's remarks. The bench clarified that these were oral observations made during arguments. Ramachandran pointed out that such remarks are televised, adding that both the bench and the bar have responsibilities. The court replied, "Yes, because of this, only we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks."

Earlier Warning On Compensation And Accountability

During a hearing last week, the Supreme Court had warned that it may direct state governments to pay heavy compensation for every stray dog attack resulting in death or injury to children or the elderly. The bench had also spoken of fixing accountability on those feeding stray dogs.

"Also, responsibility and accountability will be fixed on those who are feeding these stray dogs. If you love these animals so much, then why don't you take them to your house. Why should these dogs loiter around, bite and scare people?" the court had observed.