‘Contempt of court’: SC slams Maneka for criticism of orders on stray dogs

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply criticised former Union minister Maneka Gandhi over remarks she made about the court’s orders in the ongoing stray dog matter, with the bench stating that her comments amount to contempt of court.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, however, said it would not initiate contempt proceedings against Gandhi, citing the court’s “magnanimity”.

During the hearing, the bench questioned senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, about the nature of her public statements on the issue. “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? Have you heard her podcast?” the bench asked.

The court said Gandhi had made sweeping allegations without due thought. “She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking.

Have you seen her body language? What she says and how she says. Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance because of the court’s magnanimity,” the bench told Ramachandran.

Ramachandran responded that it was not a contempt matter and said politicians often make differing statements. He added that he was only putting forth his client’s plea, noting that he had even appeared on behalf of 2008 Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab. Ramachandran had been appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court to represent Kasab in his appeal against the death sentence.

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

Ramachandran submitted that lawyers and judges operate on different planes when it comes to public comments and sought permission to argue Gandhi’s intervention application. Justice Mehta then questioned why the application did not mention any budgetary allocation, considering Gandhi’s long public career. “Since your client has been a minister and is a well known animal rights activist and has been a parliamentarian for long. Tell us why your application is silent on the budgetary allocation which has been made due to her. What has been the contribution of your client to these problems,” Justice Mehta said. Ramachandran replied he could not answer orally and maintained that budget allocation is a policy decision.

The hearing also saw advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one intervenor, point out variations in sterilisation outcomes, saying it had not been effective in some cities, while in places such as Lucknow and Goa, it had worked.

Justice Mehta noted that sterilisation had already been argued by other parties and observed that the court cannot require stray dogs to carry sterilisation certificates.

Bhushan referred to remarks made during court proceedings, saying some comments may be misinterpreted and have consequences. He cited a court observation that dog feeders could be held accountable for dog bites and described it as sarcastic. Justice Nath disagreed, saying the court’s comment was serious. “Although, we don’t know what we will do in this matter but that comment was not made sarcastically but on a serious note although made in a dialogue during the hearing,” he said. Bhushan said that after the remark, some dog feeders were beaten up.

At this point, Ramachandran flagged that the hearing was televised and urged restraint by both the bench and bar. The court responded, “We are restraining ourselves from making comments which would have otherwise been made in the matter.”

The bench was hearing several lawyers and litigants seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s November 7, 2025 order. Gandhi has earlier criticised the apex court’s orders as impractical and called for compassion.

The matter was posted for further hearing on January 28, when the court said it would hear different states. The stray dog issue is being considered in a suo motu case initiated on July 28 last year, following a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.

On November 7, citing an “alarming rise” in dog-bite incidents in institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the Supreme Court directed authorities to relocate stray dogs forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination, and said dogs picked up should not be released back to the places they were taken from. It also directed removal of cattle and other stray animals from state highways, national highways and expressways.

In subsequent hearings, the Supreme Court has flagged non-implementation of stray animal norms for the last five years. On January 13, it said it would ask states to pay “heavy compensation” for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable. On January 9, it declined to examine allegations of harassment of women dog feeders by purported anti-feeder vigilantes, calling it a law and order issue and stating that aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs, while also refusing to go into claims of derogatory remarks about women linked to the controversy.