SUPREME COURT STRONGLY CRITICIZES MANEKA GANDHI OVER HER COMMENTS ON STRAY DOG CASE RULING:

During the hearing of a suo motu case concerning the stray dog issue, the Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for making public comments against members of the judiciary, observing that her remarks amounted to “contempt of court.” However, the Court clarified that it would not initiate contempt proceedings against her, stating that it was exercising restraint out of “magnanimity.” The observations were made by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, which was conducting the fifth day of hearings in the matter.

At the outset of the proceedings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised an objection to certain oral observations made by the Bench during the previous hearing. He submitted that some remarks made during court proceedings tend to be misunderstood or misreported. “I want to say, your lordships have been making remarks during hearing, some of them get misinterpreted,” Bhushan said. In response, Justice Mehta explained that those remarks were provoked by what he described as “unrealistic arguments” advanced on behalf of individuals advocating for dog feeders.

Bhushan further cautioned that even casual or sarcastic remarks from the Bench could have serious consequences once reported. By way of example, he said, “Sometimes, remarks of the court lead to consequences. Like, suppose, bench sarcastically made remark that feeders should be made responsible. That was reported…” Justice Mehta firmly rejected the suggestion that the remarks were sarcastic, stating, “No no, not at all sarcastic. We were serious. We don’t know what we will do. But we were serious.”

At this stage, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Maneka Gandhi, intervened and urged caution given that the proceedings were being televised. “As member of the Bar, I also want to say on this. Proceedings are televised. There’s duty on both bar and bench to be circumspect,” he said. Justice Mehta responded by acknowledging the concern, remarking, “We are aware. We are refraining keeping this in mind.”

Shortly thereafter, Justice Vikram Nath addressed Ramachandran directly and questioned whether he had taken note of the statements being made by his client in public. “A little while ago you were telling us court should be circumspect, did you find out what kind of statements your client has been making?” Justice Nath asked. Ramachandran replied, “Of course. If I can appear for Ajmal Kasab, I can appear for her.” In response, Justice Nath remarked sharply, “Your client has committed contempt. We have not taken action, that’s our magnanimity. You see what she says, her body language!”

Ramachandran attempted to move the hearing forward by submitting that lawyers and judges operate on different planes when it comes to public commentary and requested permission to address the pending applications. He then argued that effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules was central to addressing the stray dog problem. He referred to the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE), which, according to him, had identified key obstacles, assigned responsibilities to stakeholders, and required States to prepare action plans something more than 30 States had failed to do. He contended that a time-bound execution of existing policies, rather than the creation of permanent shelters, was the real solution.

Justice Mehta, however, questioned the absence of any reference to budgetary allocations in Gandhi’s application, noting her past role as a Minister and her position as 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?” he asked. Ramachandran replied that he was unable to provide an oral response to that query. The Bench then continued to hear submissions from various lawyers representing both dog feeders and victims of dog attacks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 28 at 2 PM.