The Supreme Court of India today expressed strong displeasure toward animal rights activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for her remarks and “body language” in a recent podcast concerning the ongoing stray dog case. The three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria warned that her comments bordered on contempt. The court further clarified that its previous observation—suggesting that those who feed stray dogs should be held responsible for attacks—was a serious stance, not a sarcastic one, as it weighs the safety of citizens against animal welfare.
Key Court Observations
-
On Contempt: The bench stated that Gandhi had “committed contempt” through her public commentary but chose not to take formal action, attributing this to the court’s “magnanimity.”
-
On “Body Language”: The judges specifically highlighted the manner in which she spoke in her podcast, asking her lawyer, “What is her body language? What she says and how she says [it].”
-
On Dog Feeders: The court dispelled notions that its previous comments were sarcastic. “We said it very seriously,” the bench noted, reiterating that accountability must be fixed on those feeding strays if those dogs cause death or injury.
- On Financial Contribution: The bench pointedly asked what Gandhi’s personal contributions to budgetary allocations for sterilization and rabies schemes have been, given her long tenure as a minister and activist.
The Legal Exchange: Bench vs. Bar
The hearing featured a sharp exchange between the judges and prominent lawyers representing the activists:
| Person | Argument / Response |
| Raju Ramachandran (For Gandhi) | Urged the court to be “circumspect.” Declined to comment on the podcast remarks as it wasn’t a contempt hearing. |
| Justice Vikram Nath | Rebutted Ramachandran’s mention of representing Ajmal Kasab by stating, “Kasab had not committed contempt.” |
| Prashant Bhushan (For Petitioners) | Argued that sterilization reduces aggression but is poorly implemented. Claimed the court’s “feeder responsibility” remarks led to attacks on animal lovers. |
| The Bench | Maintained that if activists “love these animals so much,” they should take them into their homes rather than letting them “loiter around, bite and scare people.” |
