The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised former Union minister and BJP leader Maneka Gandhi for her public remarks against its orders on the stray dog issue, observing that her comments amounted to “contempt of court”, though it chose not to initiate proceedings, citing its “magnanimity”.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria expressed displeasure at Gandhi’s statements made on a podcast while hearing the matter.
“You said the court should be circumspect in its remark but have you asked your client what kind of remarks she has made? Have you heard her podcast? She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking. Have you seen her body language?” the bench remarked.
During the hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Gandhi, told the court that he had earlier represented Ajmal Kasab, the convicted 26/11 Mumbai terror attacker. This prompted a sharp response from the bench.
Justice Nath said, “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has.”
The court also questioned Gandhi on what steps she had taken, as a former minister, to address the stray dog problem, asking what “budgetary allocation” she had helped secure for the issue.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reviewed the stray dog situation in the Delhi-NCR region following a surge in dog bite cases, stressing that public safety must take precedence, particularly in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, and railway stations.
The court had also observed that those who feed stray dogs must do so responsibly, raising concerns over accountability in cases of attacks. It said individuals keen on caring for dogs should adopt them as licensed pets rather than allowing them to roam freely.
Last year, the apex court had directed authorities to remove stray dogs from educational institutions, hospitals, and bus and railway stations, and ruled that they should not be returned to the same locations after sterilisation.
Maneka Gandhi had criticised the order, saying: “This is as bad as or even worse than Justice Pardiwala’s judgement. This cannot be put into practice… 5000 dogs are removed, where will you keep them? You need 50 shelters… But you do not have that. You need people to pick them up. What difference will removing 5000 dogs make? If there are 8 lakh dogs here, what will removing 5000 dogs change?… The question is that if this were possible, it would have been done…”
Notably, the Supreme Court has modified its earlier, stricter order on handling stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, softening the directive that dogs picked up from the streets should not be returned.
In its revised ruling, the court allowed stray dogs to be released back into their original areas after they are properly sterilised, vaccinated and dewormed, while dogs suspected of rabies or displaying aggressive behaviour must remain in shelters.
The bench also banned unregulated public feeding of stray dogs on streets and directed municipal authorities to create designated feeding zones in each ward.
In addition, the Supreme Court extended the scope of the case beyond Delhi-NCR by involving all states and Union Territories to ensure compliance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and work towards a unified national policy on stray-dog management.
