Key Points:
- Supreme Court bench led by Justice Vikram Nath expresses deep displeasure over Maneka Gandhi’s podcast remarks
- Court states it’s showing generosity by not initiating contempt proceedings against her
- Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran reprimanded for advising while client makes controversial comments
- Justice Nath compares Gandhi unfavorably to Ajmal Kasab, stating even Kasab didn’t commit contempt
- Court questions Gandhi’s contributions to stray dog welfare budget and schemes as minister and activist
- Advocate Prashant Bhushan argues sterilization not properly implemented, dog feeders being attacked due to court remarks
- Previous hearing: SC said state governments must pay compensation for stray dog attack victims
The Supreme Court on Tuesday severely reprimanded former Union Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi. The court expressed deep displeasure over comments made by Maneka Gandhi during a podcast related to stray dogs and her “body language.” The apex court clearly stated that it was out of its generosity that it was not initiating contempt proceedings against her.
A bench comprising future Chief Justice of India Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed during the hearing that what Maneka Gandhi said in the podcast was serious. The court asked her lawyer, Raju Ramachandran, if he had heard his client’s remarks. The judges clarified that Maneka Gandhi’s comments directly amounted to contempt of court, indicating the gravity of her statements.
Why did the Supreme Court get so angry?
The debate took a sharp turn when Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer, Raju Ramachandran, argued that the court should be cautious. The bench expressed its displeasure, saying that he was giving them advice while his client was making all sorts of comments about anyone she pleased. The court’s frustration stemmed from Gandhi’s apparent disregard for judicial dignity and her provocative statements on a sensitive public issue.
Why did the SC mention Kasab?
When Ramachandran said that this was not a contempt hearing and mentioned that he had also represented 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab, Justice Nath became even more agitated. He retorted that even Kasab had not committed contempt of court. The Supreme Court also questioned what contribution Maneka Gandhi, as both an animal rights activist and a minister, had made to the budget and schemes for addressing the problem of stray dogs. This stark comparison highlighted the court’s view that Gandhi’s conduct was more egregious than that of a convicted terrorist in terms of respecting judicial authority.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that sterilization reduces aggression in dogs, but it is not being properly implemented in most cities. He also said that dog feeders were being attacked due to some of the court’s previous remarks. To this, Justice Nath reiterated that the court’s statement was not sarcasm but a serious matter, emphasizing that judicial pronouncements on public safety issues demand respect, not mockery.
What did the SC say in the previous hearing? In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had stated that if children or the elderly are killed or injured in attacks by stray dogs, the state governments would be ordered to pay substantial compensation. The court had also questioned why those who feed stray dogs shouldn’t be held responsible and why, if they are so fond of animals, they don’t keep them in their own homes. These remarks had sparked controversy among animal welfare activists, leading to Gandhi’s critical podcast comments.
