The Supreme Court of India sharply criticised former Union Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi for her comments and “body language” during a podcast on the ongoing stray dog issue. The remarks came in response to the court’s previous observations on accountability for dog feeders and measures to prevent attacks by stray dogs.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria expressed its displeasure at Gandhi’s comments, highlighting that it was only the court’s “magnanimity” that prevented it from initiating contempt proceedings. Addressing Gandhi’s lawyer, Raju Ramachandran, the bench noted, “Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance of that. That is our magnanimity. Have you heard her podcast? What is her body language? What she says and how she says it.”

The court emphasised that its earlier remarks were serious, not sarcastic, especially regarding its statement that feeders should be made responsible for stray dog attacks. “No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously,” Justice Nath clarified, countering claims that the comments had led to harassment of dog feeders.

Also Read: Delhi-NCR Gets Breathing Room: CAQM Revokes GRAP-4 Curbs with Immediate Effect

During the hearing, the bench also questioned Gandhi’s contributions to state budget allocations for schemes aimed at sterilisation, rabies control, and capacity building to handle stray dog attacks, pointing out the need for tangible action rather than rhetoric. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioners, noted that sterilisation programmes are largely ineffective in many cities and that dog feeders are sometimes attacked, citing the court’s remarks.

The court reiterated that its oral observations were part of a conversation with counsel and stressed that responsibility and accountability for stray dog-related injuries, especially to children and the elderly, must be clearly assigned. Previously, the court had indicated it would direct state governments to pay heavy compensation for such incidents and urged that stray animals be managed responsibly rather than left to roam freely.

The Supreme Court’s strong reaction underscores its insistence on careful discourse when commenting on judicial pronouncements, particularly on sensitive public safety issues, and highlights the expectation that public figures engage constructively rather than making remarks that could mislead or inflame public opinion.

Also Read: India's Indus Waters Treaty Freeze Hits Pakistan's Core Vulnerability After Pahalgam Massacre