'Contempt Of Court' : Supreme Court Flays Maneka Gandhi For Remarks On Stray Dog Case Order

During the hearing of the suo motu case on the stray dog issue, the Supreme Court on Tuesday pulled up former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, observing that she has committed "contempt of court" through her comments against the judges.

However, the Court said that it was not taking any action because of its "maganimity".

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria was on the 5th day of the hearing of the case. As soon as the hearing started, Advocate Prashant Bhushan took objection to some oral comments made by the bench during the previous hearing, saying "I want to say, your lordships have been making remarks during hearing, some of them get misinterpreted."

Justice Mehta said that the remarks were in response to "unrealistic arguments" made on behalf of dog lovers.  Bhushan replied, "Sometimes, remarks of the court lead to consequences. Like, suppose, bench sarcastically made remark that feeders should be made responsible. That was reported..."

Justice Mehta said that the bench's comments (about responsibility of dog feeders) were not sarcastic. "No no, not at all sarcastic. We were serious. We don't know what we will do. But we were serious," Justice Mehta said.

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Maneka Gandhi, interjected to say, "As member of the Bar, I also want to say on this. Proceedings are televised. There's duty on both bar and bench to be circumspect." Justice Mehta replied, "We are aware. We are refraining keeping this in mind."

After a short while, Justice Vikram Nath, addressing Ramachandran, said, "A little while ago you were telling us court should be circumspect, did you find out what kind of statements your client has been making?"

Ramachandran said, "Ofcourse. If I can appear for Ajmal Kasab, I can appear for her." (Ramachandran was the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court to represent Ajmal Kasab in the Mumbai terror attack case).

"Your client has committed contempt. We have not taken action, that's our magnanimity. You see what she says, her body language!" Justice Nath told Ramachandran.

"Lawyers and judges will be on different plain when it comes to public comments. Let me address on applications," the senior counsel submitted.

Ramachandran said that effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules is integral to any comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem. He pointed out that the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE) policy has already identified nine major hurdles to eradicating rabies, clearly delineated the roles of all stakeholders, and mandated States to formulate their own action plans. However, more than 30 States have failed to do so. According to him, the solution lies in time bound execution of the existing framework, rather than creating permanent shelters.

Justice Mehta then asked him, "Since your client has been a Minister and is an animal rights activist...tell us [why] your application is silent on the budgetary allocation...what has been the contribution of your client to these...?"

Ramachandran replied that he cannot give an oral answer to the question.

The bench then proceeded to hear various lawyers from the sides of dog lovers and victims of dog attacks. The hearing will continue on January 28, 2 PM.

Live updates from today's hearing can be found here.