'Have Not Taken Contempt Action, That's Our Magnanimity': SC Pulls Up Maneka Gandhi For Remarks On Stray Dog Order, Flags 'Body Language'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on animal activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi over her recent remarks on the top court's observations in the stray dogs case, and only stopped short of initiating contempt proceedings against her.

Flagging Maneka's "body language," the bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria even said that it was the court's "magnanimity" that it did not take contempt action. 

"A little while ago you were telling us court should be circumspect, did you find out what kind of statements she has been making? Your client has committed contempt. We have not taken action, that's our magnanimity. You see what she says, her body language!" Justice Nath told Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, Maneka Gandhi's lawyer.

When Ramachandran spoke in detail about the steps that can be taken to tackle stray dog attacks like rabies control measures, vaccines and capacity building of professionals, the court hit back saying, “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?”

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was also appearing for one of the petitioners, pointed out that sterilisaton has helped in reducing the aggression of stray dogs. “Sterilization over a period of time reduces stray dogs population. It also reduces aggressiveness. How to make it effective? Make it transparent and people accountable. There should be a system where people can report stray dogs who seem to be non-sterilized. There should be designated authorities to respond to complaint. They must come, examine and see,” Bhushan said.

At one point during the argument, Ramachandran mentioned that he had also appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab. To this, Justice Nath shot back saying, "Kasab had not committed contempt."

When Bhushan argued that, at times, the court's observations can lead to unfortunate consequences, like when the court had spoken about making feeders responsible for dog bites which might have been only sarcastic, Justice Nath shot back saying, "No, we didn't make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously."

At this point, Ramachandran, interjected to say, "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." To this, Justice Mehta replied, "We are aware. We are refraining keeping this in mind."

What The Court Said Earlier

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said that it would ask state governments to pay compensation for every stray attack that lead to death or injury. 

"Also, responsibility and accountability will be fixed on those who are feeding these stray dogs. If u love these animals so much, then why don't you take them to your house. Why should these dogs loiter around, bite and scare people?" the bench had said.

What Maneka Gandhi Had Said

The Supreme Court had ordered the removal of all stray dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus and railway stations. It had also directed that these strays should not be released back in the same area after sterilisation.

“This is as bad as or even worse than Justice Pardiwala's judgement. This cannot be put into practice. If 5000 dogs are removed, where will you keep them? You need 50 shelters. But you do not have that. You need people to pick them up. What difference will removing 5000 dogs make? If there are 8 lakh dogs here, what will removing 5000 dogs change?...The question is that if this were possible, it would have been done,” Gandhi said.

ALSO READ: 'For Every Dog Bite, Dog-Feeders Will Be Held Accountable': Supreme Court