The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly reprimanded former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for her public criticism of the court’s orders on stray dogs, observing that her remarks bordered on contempt of court, although it ultimately chose not to initiate formal contempt proceedings. The court expressed clear displeasure over comments she made during a recent podcast, stating that she had made “all kinds of comments” without due thought and even drew attention to what it described as her “body language.”
A bench comprising Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria questioned Gandhi sharply, not only on the tone and content of her remarks but also on her own role, as a former Union minister, in addressing the long-standing problem of stray dogs. The judges specifically asked what kind of budgetary allocation or concrete measures she had facilitated during her tenure in government to tackle the issue. Gandhi has previously held key portfolios, including women and child development, social justice, and animal welfare.
During the hearing, the bench also directed pointed remarks at senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was representing Gandhi. The judges questioned whether he had reflected on the nature of his client’s statements before arguing that courts should exercise restraint in making comments. The bench asked whether he had even listened to the podcast in question, remarking that Gandhi appeared to have criticised almost everyone and that her conduct and demeanour were also problematic.
In response, Ramachandran contended that matters such as budgetary allocations fall squarely within the domain of government policy rather than judicial scrutiny. In an attempt to illustrate the professional duty of a lawyer, he mentioned that he had once represented Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist captured alive after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, who was later executed.
This comparison drew an immediate and sharp rebuke from the bench. Justice Nath remarked that while Kasab had committed heinous crimes, he had not committed contempt of court, whereas Gandhi’s remarks, in the judges’ view, clearly crossed that line. The court said it was refraining from initiating contempt proceedings only out of “magnanimity,” signalling that it could have taken a stricter course.
Although the bench did not spell out which specific statements by Gandhi were considered contemptuous, it was evident that her public criticism of the judiciary’s earlier directions had deeply irked the court. Last year, a bench led by Justice Pardiwala had ordered civic authorities in Delhi to round up all stray dogs within eight weeks and place them in designated shelters. That order triggered widespread public backlash and concern from animal rights activists.
Subsequently, the matter was reassigned to a three-judge bench, which diluted the earlier directive. The modified order required that stray dogs be permanently removed only from sensitive public spaces such as educational institutions, hospitals, and bus and railway stations, rather than from all public areas.
Maneka Gandhi had openly criticised even the modified directions, calling them impractical and pointing to what she described as a lack of coordination among civic authorities. She termed the ruling a “very strange judgment” and suggested that it appeared to have been delivered in anger. Questioning its feasibility, she argued that authorities lacked the infrastructure to implement such orders, citing the absence of adequate shelters, personnel, and resources.
Gandhi had also remarked that removing a few thousand dogs would make little difference when cities allegedly had several lakh strays, and insisted that the Supreme Court should have first examined the ground realities and the condition of public institutions before issuing such directives. These remarks, made in the public domain, ultimately prompted the Supreme Court’s stern response, underscoring the judiciary’s view that criticism must remain within permissible limits and not undermine the authority of the court.
