Top Court Slams Maneka Gandhi For Stray Dogs Remark, Flags "Body Language"

Coming down heavily on animal activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court today flagged her "body language" and remarks on the court's observations in the stray dogs case during a podcast.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria said it was the court's "magnanimity" that it did not take contempt action. The court also said it was serious and not sarcastic when it spoke of making dog feeders responsible for stray dog attacks.

The court told Gandhi's lawyer Raju Ramachandran, "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."

"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," the bench said.

Ramachandran declined to comment on the court's observations because it was not a contempt case hearing. At one point, he said he had appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab. Justice Nath replied, "Kasab had not committed contempt." 

The lawyer proceeded to talk about rabies control measures, the availability of vaccines and capacity building of professionals to tackle stray dog attacks.

The court responded, "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?"

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said sterilisation reduces the aggression of stray dogs, but no effective sterilisation is being implemented in most cities.

He then said that the court's observations can sometimes lead to unfortunate consequences. "For example, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic." Justice Nath replied, "No, we didn't make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously."

Bhushan replied that dog feeders are being attacked and the attackers are citing these remarks. The bench said the remarks were oral arguments made during a conversation with counsel. Ramachandran said the remarks are being televised and both the bar and bench have a duty. "Yes, because of this, only we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks," the bench replied.

During a hearing in the matter last week, the court had said it would ask state governments to pay heavy compensation for every stray attack causing death or injury to children or the elderly. "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 bench asked.