Supreme Court Reprimands Maneka Gandhi Over Podcast Remarks, Cites 'Magnanimity' in Not Initiating Contempt Proceedings

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly criticised animal rights activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi for her comments and "body language" during a recent podcast, where she appeared to question the court's observations in an ongoing case concerning stray dog attacks.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria made it clear that it was exercising "magnanimity" by not initiating contempt proceedings against Gandhi, despite her remarks being viewed as disrespectful to the court.

Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, the bench remarked: "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 further noted the inconsistency in the lawyer's plea for judicial restraint while his client freely commented on various matters, stating: "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."

Ramachandran chose not to respond directly to the court's observations on the podcast, clarifying that the matter was not listed for a contempt hearing. When he mentioned having previously represented 26/11 Mumbai attack terrorist Ajmal Kasab, Justice Nath retorted: "Kasab had not committed contempt."

The hearing, which pertains to measures for controlling stray dog populations and addressing attacks on humans, saw the bench questioning Gandhi's contributions as a prominent animal rights advocate and former cabinet minister. The court asked: "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?"—referring to rabies control, vaccine availability, and professional training to manage stray dog-related incidents.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that effective sterilisation programmes could reduce aggression in stray dogs, but such measures remain poorly implemented in most cities. He also expressed concern over the potential real-world impact of the court's earlier oral observations, noting that remarks holding dog feeders accountable for bites had been cited by attackers targeting feeders.

The bench firmly clarified that its statement about making feeders responsible was made "very seriously" and not sarcastically, as Bhushan had suggested. The court said that those observations were part of oral arguments during the hearing and not formal orders.

The bench reiterated its earlier stance from the previous week's hearing, where it had proposed that state governments be directed to pay substantial compensation for stray dog attacks resulting in death or injury, particularly to children or the elderly. It had also questioned why animal lovers who feed strays do not adopt them instead of allowing them to roam freely, bite people, and create fear in public spaces.

The court acknowledged the responsibility of both the bar and the bench in the face of televised proceedings and wide dissemination of remarks, stating that this was precisely why it was restraining itself from making additional observations.

Also Read: Race against time: Digital effort saves Khamyang Language; spoken by just one surviving person