Supreme Court rebukes Maneka Gandhi over podcast remarks in stray dog case

The Supreme Court rebuked Maneka Gandhi over her podcast on the stray dog case, saying her remarks amounted to contempt but chose not to act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi for comments made in her podcast regarding the court’s observations in the ongoing stray dog case. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, said her remarks amounted to contempt of court but noted that it was choosing not to pursue action, describing this restraint as an act of generosity.

The court took exception to Gandhi’s ‘body language’ and tone in the podcast, which it said misrepresented its observations. The bench clarified that its earlier statement about holding dog feeders responsible for stray dog attacks was made seriously, not sarcastically, and accused Gandhi of undermining judicial authority through her public commentary.

Her counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, was sharply reprimanded by the bench. The judges questioned how he could advise caution to the court while his client was making sweeping public statements. Ramachandran declined to respond to the court’s observations, noting that the matter was not formally a contempt hearing. At one point, he referenced his role in defending 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, prompting Justice Nath to remark that Kasab had not committed contempt of court.

Also Read: D K Suresh criticises ballot paper decision for Bengaluru civic polls

The hearing also touched upon broader issues of rabies control, vaccine availability, and the need for professional capacity building to manage stray dog attacks. The bench asked what contributions Gandhi had made during her tenure as a minister toward budgetary allocations for such schemes.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners, argued that neutering reduces aggression among stray dogs but is poorly implemented in most cities. He cautioned that judicial observations could sometimes have unintended consequences, citing attacks on dog feeders following the court’s earlier remarks. The bench, however, reiterated that its comments were serious and not sarcastic.

The judges acknowledged that oral arguments are often broadcast widely and stressed that both the bar and bench must exercise responsibility. While refraining from further criticism, the court’s stern words underscored its displeasure with Gandhi’s public statements and the need to maintain respect for judicial proceedings.

Also Read: Bengaluru suburban rail project completion pushed to 2030