New Delhi: Animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi received a blasting from the Supreme Court on Tuesday for her “body language” and remarks on the court’s observations in the stray dogs case during a podcast.
It was the court’s “magnanimity” that it did not take contempt action, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria said, as reported by NDTV. The Court also said it was serious and not sarcastic when it spoke of making dog feeders responsible for stray dog attacks.
“A little while ago, you were telling the court we should be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making? 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,” The court told Maneka’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran.
“You made a comment that the court should be circumspect. On the other hand, your client is making all sorts of comments on anybody and anything she likes,” the bench added.
Maneka is a party in the matter and has been known to be critical about certain observations made by the Court on the issue of strays.
Ramachandran, however, declined to comment on the court’s observations because it was not a contempt case hearing. At one point, he said he had appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, prompting Justice Nath to say: “Kasab had not committed contempt.”
The lawyer then proceeded to talk about rabies control measures, the availability of vaccines and capacity building of professionals to tackle stray dog attacks.
“Since your client is an animal rights activist, she was a cabinet minister etc, what are the contributions of your client to the budgetary allocations for implementing these schemes,” the Court responded.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for another petitioner, said sterilisation reduces the aggression of stray dogs, but no effective sterilisation is being implemented in most cities.
He then said that the Court’s observations can sometimes lead to unfortunate consequences.
“For example, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic,” Bhushan said.
“No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously,” Justice Nath said.
Bhushan then pointed out that dog feeders are being attacked and the attackers are citing the court’s remarks. The bench said the remarks were oral arguments made during a conversation with counsel.
Ramachandran then pointed out that the remarks are being televised and both the bar and bench have a duty.
“Yes, because of this only we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks,” the bench replied.
