The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi over her remarks criticising apex court orders in the stray dog issue, stating that she has committed contempt of court.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice NV Anjaria said that the former union minister made “all kinds of comments” against everyone without even thinking. The bench said that it was the court’s “magnanimity” that it did not take contempt action, news agency PTI reported.
Questioning senior advocate Raju Ramachandran who appeared for Maneka Gandhi, the bench said, “You said the court should be circumspect in its remark but have you asked your client what kind of remarks she has made? Have you heard her podcast? She has made all kinds of remarks against everybody without even thinking. Have you seen her body language?”
Justice Mehta even asked her lawyer what budgetary allocation had Maneka Gandhi, as a former Union minister, helped in getting to eradicate the stray dog problem.
Ramachandran declined to comment on the court’s observations because it was not a contempt case hearing. At one point, he said he had appeared even on behalf of 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab and budgetary allocation is a policy matter.
“Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has,” Justice Nath remarked.
The bench said its remark on making dog feeders accountable was not made sarcastically but on a serious note, although during a dialogue while hearing the matter.
The hearing in the case is still underway.
What’s The Row?
Maneka Gandhi on 4 January said Supreme court judges have done “disservice” to the nation as the top court’s order to remove stray dogs from public spaces has “divided” the country.
She had argued against a coercive approach against stray dogs.
“The problem was never the dogs. It was, and continues to be, the utter collapse of civic systems meant to manage them. Municipal sterilisation programmes exist only on paper. Waste lies scattered across our streets and campuses. Hospitals dump food and biomedical waste in the open. And when dogs gather where food and filth do, the response is not to fix the cause, but to punish the symptom,” she had said, arguing that the court should have “paused to look at the real condition of our public institutions”.
“Asking a broken system to perform a miracle is not a solution. It is an admission of failure,” she added.
On January 13, the top court had said it will ask states to pay a “heavy compensation” for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders accountable for such cases.
The court also flagged concerns over the non-implementation of norms on stray animals for the last five years.
(With inputs from agencies)
