Have you seen her body language?: SC hits back at Maneka Gandhi; calls her comments ‘unthinking’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on January 20 sharply criticised former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi for her remarks criticising its orders on the management of stray dogs, saying that she had committed contempt of court. However, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria chose not to initiate formal contempt proceedings against Gandhi, citing the court’s magnanimity.
Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who represented 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?”
The bench added, “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.”
Also read: SC orders removal of stray dogs from public spaces; Maneka Gandhi slam move
Ramachandran responded that politicians often make public statements and argued, “It is not a contempt matter. Lawyers and judges operate on different planes when it comes to public comments.” The bench, however, drew a sharp distinction, noting, “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has.”
The case concerns several petitions seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s November 7, 2025 order, which directed authorities to remove stray dogs from institutional areas, roads, and highways after sterilisation and vaccination. The court had also ruled that dog feeders could be held accountable for dog bite incidents and warned states to pay compensation in serious cases.
During the hearing, Justice Mehta questioned Gandhi’s contribution to policy, noting, “Since your client has been a minister and 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 replied that budgetary allocations were a policy decision and could not be addressed orally in court.
Also read: SC’s stray dog verdict receives strong backing from political and animal activists | VIDEO
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the intervenors, highlighted concerns over sterilisation, saying it had not been effective in some cities, while others like Lucknow and Goa saw positive results. He also noted that the court’s remarks about dog feeders had been misinterpreted, leading to harassment in some cases. Justice Nath clarified, “That comment was not made sarcastically but on a serious note.”
The bench emphasised the importance of implementing directives on sterilisation, relocation, and the humane management of stray animals. It noted that while the court restrained itself from making certain comments during the televised hearing, all parties should exercise caution in public statements.
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing on January 28, when it will hear different states. The case was initiated suo motu on July 28, 2025, following media reports of stray dog bites causing rabies, particularly among children in Delhi.
The apex court has consistently stressed that its orders aim to ensure public safety while treating animals humanely. It directed that stray dogs picked up from institutional areas or roads should not be released back to their original locations and that authorities must maintain sterilisation and vaccination records. The court also flagged the non-implementation of stray animal norms over the past five years, calling for urgent compliance by all concerned authorities.
(With PTI inputs)