SC Voices Displeasure Regarding Maneka Gandhi’s Criticism Of Its Order In Stray Dogs’ Case
The top court said advocate Raju Ramachandran that his client had committed contempt, and the court is not taking cognisance of it.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : January 20, 2026 at 6:09 PM IST
|Updated : January 20, 2026 at 6:37 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its discontent with the remarks of former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, made on her podcast, criticising its orders on the stray dog issue. “Have you heard her podcast? She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking,” the bench told her counsel, voicing displeasure at her comments. The apex court, however, clarified that it would not initiate contempt proceedings against Gandhi, citing its own magnanimity.
The matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran appeared for Gandhi before the bench. During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing a party, submitted before the bench that there should be a system where people can report stray dogs that seem to be non-sterilised, and it should be recorded or reported on some website.
He added that there should be designated authorities whose responsibility will be to respond to the complaint on unsterilised stray dogs. The bench orally remarked, why can’t we ask the dogs to carry the certificates themselves.
Bhushan said sometimes these remarks of the court lead to unfortunate consequences and pointed out that in the previous hearing, the bench had said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Bhushan said perhaps it was sarcastic. The bench said it did not make that comment sarcastically. “We said it seriously”, said the bench.
Ramachandran said being a member of the Bar, and both bar and bench, should be circumspect. The bench said it is conscious of that, and it can say many things more but it is refraining.
After a short while, the bench addressing Ramachandran, who was representing Maneka Gandhi, said a little while ago, you were telling the court should be circumspect, did you find out what kind of statements your client has been making? Ramachandran said that he had appeared for Ajmal Kasab, and he can appear for Gandhi as well. “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court, but your client has,” the bench remarked.
The bench told Raju that his client had committed contempt, and the court is not taking cognisance of it. “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", asked the bench.
The bench said it was not initiating contempt proceedings against her because of the court’s magnanimity. Raju said lawyers and judges will be on different planes when it comes to public comments, and began his submissions on the application. He said that the effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules is integral to any comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem.
Justice Mehta asked Raju, “Since your client has been a minister and is an animal rights activist, tell us (why) your application is silent on the budgetary allocation, what has been the contribution of your client to these?" Raju replied that he cannot give an oral answer to the query posed by the bench and budgetary allocation is a policy matter
The hearing in the matter will continue on January 28. On January 13, the top court had said it would 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.
Read More
