Supreme Court Pulls Up Maneka Gandhi for “Reckless” Comments on Dog Menace Orders

 New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed former Union minister Maneka Gandhi's remarks criticising apex court orders in the stray dog issue, saying she had committed contempt of court. A three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. Anjaria said it was not initiating contempt of court proceedings against Maneka Gandhi because of the court's magnanimity.

Observing that the former minister had made "all kinds of comments" against everyone without even thinking, the apex court questioned her counsel and 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."

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

Her counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, replied that it was not a contempt matter and politicians do make different statements.

He said he had 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 the former minister.

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.

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

Appearing for one of the interveners, advocate Prashant Bhushan 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," he said.

Ramachandran at this juncture said that since it was a televised hearing, the court and the bar should be circumspect in its remarks. The top court said, "We are restraining ourselves from making comments which would have otherwise been made in the matter."