The Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up former Union Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi over her remarks targeting members of the judiciary in a case related to the escalating stray dog menace in the country.
Noting that the remarks prima facie amounted to criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the three-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria stopped short of initiating formal contempt proceedings on the grounds of judicial restraint and institutional magnanimity.
The Apex Court made these observations while conducting the fifth day of hearing in a suo motu matter engaging questions of public safety, municipal governance, and statutory compliance under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2023, framed in exercise of powers under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The proceedings also implicate the positive obligations of the State under Article 21 to safeguard human life and public health.
At the commencement of proceedings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised objections to certain oral observations made by the Bench during earlier hearings, submitting that judicial remarks made in open court—particularly in proceedings being live-streamed—were susceptible to misinterpretation and could have unintended downstream consequences.
In response, Justice Mehta clarified that the observations were occasioned by submissions advanced on behalf of certain stakeholders, which the Bench found to be detached from prevailing ground realities. He emphasised that the Court’s remarks, including those touching upon the accountability of dog feeders, were neither rhetorical nor sarcastic, but stemmed from a serious judicial engagement with issues of liability and civic responsibility in the context of recurrent dog-bite incidents and rabies-related fatalities.
The Bench further indicated that the question of feeder responsibility was under active consideration, noting that the matter required a careful reconciliation of animal welfare norms with the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and public safety under Article 21, particularly in densely populated urban settings.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing on behalf of Gandhi, intervened to underscore the heightened duty of circumspection resting on both the Bar and the Bench in the era of televised court proceedings. While acknowledging this submission, the Court simultaneously adverted to the public statements attributed to his client. Justice Nath queried whether counsel had examined the tenor and content of those remarks, observing that they appeared to transgress the permissible bounds of fair criticism and verge into contemptuous territory.
Recording its prima facie view, the Bench held that the remarks in question amounted to contempt of court. However, it consciously elected not to initiate formal proceedings, characterising its decision as an exercise of judicial self-restraint and institutional forbearance. Justice Nath also made reference to the manner and posture in which the statements were made in the public domain, indicating that such conduct aggravated their impropriety.
Counsel, while reiterating the professional obligation to represent a client irrespective of personal views or public perception, sought to steer the proceedings towards the substantive applications on record.
On the merits, Ramachandran submitted that a durable resolution of the stray dog crisis lay in the strict and time-bound implementation of the existing statutory and policy framework, rather than resorting to ad hoc or populist measures such as indiscriminate relocation or the creation of permanent shelters. He placed reliance on the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE), which identifies systemic impediments, delineates stakeholder responsibilities, and mandates States to formulate and operationalise dedicated action plans.
He informed the Bench that more than 30 States had failed to comply with these obligations, thereby undermining the national objective of eliminating rabies by 2030 and exposing significant gaps in inter-governmental coordination and execution.
The Bench, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of specific material in Gandhi’s pleadings regarding budgetary allocations, administrative initiatives, and demonstrable outcomes during her tenure as a Union Minister. Justice Mehta questioned why the application was conspicuously silent on fiscal commitments and implementation metrics, despite her long-standing association with animal welfare advocacy. Counsel declined to respond orally, stating that the issue would require a detailed factual affidavit.
The Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to hear submissions from counsel representing animal welfare organisations as well as victims of dog attacks, signalling its intent to strike a constitutionally tenable balance between statutory animal protection mandates and the imperatives of public health, safety, and governance. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 28.
The post Supreme Court pulls up Maneka Gandhi over remarks in stray dog case, stops short of initiating contempt proceedings appeared first on India Legal.