Top News

New Delhi:  The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on former Union minister Maneka Gandhi for her remarks criticising apex court orders in the stray dog issue, saying she has committed contempt of court.

However, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria said it is not initiating contempt of court proceedings against Gandhi because of the court's magnanimity.

The bench said the former minister has made "all kinds of comments" against everyone without even thinking.

Questioning 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? Have you heard her podcast?" "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," it said.

Ramachandran replied that it was not a contempt matter and politicians do make different statements.

He said he has even appeared on behalf of 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack convict Ajmal Kasab and that in the instant matter was only putting forth his client's plea.

Ramachandran was a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae 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 said that lawyers and judges will be on different planes when it comes to public comments and sought permission to argue the intervention application filed by Gandhi.

Justice Mehta told Ramachandran, "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." Ramachandran said he cannot answer this question orally but budgetary allocation is a policy decision.

During the hearing, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the intervenors in the matter, pointed out that sterilisation has not been effective in some cities while in some like Lucknow and Goa, it has been effective.

Justice Mehta pointed out that sterilisation aspects have been argued by other parties and the court cannot ask the dogs to have a sterilisation certificate.

Bhushan said, "This court has been making some comments during the hearing which is perfectly normal. But some comments may have some repercussions. Like the court made a sarcastic comment that dog feeders will be held accountable for the dog bite." Justice Nath said that the court has not made that comment sarcastically but on a serious note.

"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," Justice Nath said.

Bhushan said that all he was saying was that these comments of the court get misinterpreted and may have some repercussions as after the court's remark, some dog feeders were beaten up.

Ramachandran at this juncture intervened and said that since it was a televised hearing, the court and the bar should be circumspect in its remarks.

The bench said, "We are restraining ourselves from making comments which would have otherwise been made in the matter." The bench heard several lawyers and litigants seeking modification of November 7, 2025 order of the apex court.

Gandhi has earlier criticised the apex court orders calling them impractical and called for compassion.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 28 saying that it will hear different states on that day.

The top court was hearing several petitions seeking modification of its November 7, 2025 order directing the authorities to remove these stray animals from the institutional areas and roads.

On January 13, the top court had said it will ask states to pay a "heavy compensation" for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable for such cases.

The court also flagged concerns over the non-implementation of norms on stray animals for the last five years.

On January 9, the apex court said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law and order issue and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.

The top court also refused to go into the claims about certain derogatory remarks being made about women on the issue.

Taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog-bite incidents within institutional areas such as educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the apex court on November 7 directed relocation of stray canines forthwith to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.

It also said stray dogs picked up shall not be released back to the place they were picked up from. It directed the authorities to ensure the removal of all cattle and other stray animals from the state highways, national highways and expressways.

The top court is hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28 last year, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital.