New DelhiThe Supreme Court has strongly reprimanded animal rights activist and former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi today (Tuesday, January 20). The top court also questioned the court’s comments on his “body language” and statements in the stray dogs case during a podcast. Senior judges of the Supreme Court and future Chief Justice of the country Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N.V. The Anjaneya bench said that it is “generous” of the court that contempt action is not being taken against Maneka Gandhi. The court made it clear that when she (Maneka Gandhi) in her podcast had said that dog feeders should be held responsible for stray dog attacks, she was making a serious comment and was not joking. The court told Gandhi’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran, “Some time ago, you were telling the court that we should be careful. Have you found out what kind of comments your client is making? Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognizance of that. This is our greatness. Have you listened to her podcast? What is her body language like? What does she say and how does she say it?”
Stray dogs in Delhi will be microchipped and vaccinated, budget of Rs 35 crore fixed
‘This is contempt’
According to Bar & Bench, the bench said, “You commented that the court should be careful. On the other hand, your client is making all kinds of comments as per her wish and on whomever she wishes.” Justice Vikram Nath, who was presiding over the bench, clearly said that Maneka Gandhi’s comments come under the ambit of contempt of court, but the court did not take action on it. On this, Ramachandran said that this is not a contempt hearing, so he would not comment. During this, he said that he had also appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab. Justice Nath became more enraged at this. “Kasab did not commit contempt,” he said flatly.
Questions on budget and responsibility
The court also asked that since Maneka Gandhi has been an animal rights activist and former cabinet minister, what contribution did she make to the budget and schemes to deal with the problem of stray dogs? Meanwhile, the lawyer continued to talk about rabies control measures, availability of vaccines and capacity building of professionals to deal with stray dog attacks.
It should be understood how much tension people are under; CJI’s big order to EC amid Bengal SIR
Debate on sterilization of dogs
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said that sterilization reduces the aggression of stray dogs, but it is not being implemented properly in most cities. He also said that dog feeders are being attacked due to some of the court’s comments. On this, Justice Nath reiterated that the court’s statement was not sarcastic but serious.
What had the Supreme Court said earlier?
In the last hearing, the Supreme Court had said that if there is death or injury to children or elderly people due to attack by stray dogs, then huge compensation will be provided from the state governments. The court had also said that the responsibility and accountability of those who feed dogs can also be fixed, and raised the question that if people love animals so much then why don’t they keep them in their homes. Along with this, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the issue of stray dogs is a serious public safety issue, and the comments made on it should not be seen lightly or as a joke. The court also indicated that responsibility and decorum are necessary while making statements against the court in public forums.