On January 20th, the Supreme Court of India delivered a scathing reprimand to Maneka Gandhi, the former Union Minister and a figure who often seems to place the rights of canines far above the safety of citizens. The court came down heavily on the controversial animal activist for her public outbursts against the judiciary’s orders regarding stray dogs. It appears that in her zealous defense of animals, she forgot the decorum expected of a lawmaker, as the court observed that her remarks amounted to “contempt of court”.

In a comparison that served as a humiliating reality check, the bench remarked that even Ajmal Kasab, the terrorist involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, “did not commit contempt”, unlike Gandhi. It is a supreme irony that a man who waged war against the nation showed more respect for judicial process than a former minister does when her favorite cause is challenged. Notably, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for Gandhi, attempted to highlight his experience by arguing that he had appeared for Kasab as well. This comment backfired spectacularly, leading to the sharp rebuke by the court. Despite her blatant disregard for authority, the court, however, refrained from initiating contempt proceedings against her due to its “magnanimity”—a quality often missing in activists who ignore the pain of dog bite victims. The three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N V Anjaria was hearing a suo motu case on the stray dog issue and public safety concerns.

Bench stands by previous verbal comments

At the beginning of the hearing, the atmosphere was tense as advocate Prashant Bhushan objected to oral remarks made by the bench during the previous proceedings. He took issue with remarks where the court said it would impose fines on dog feeders for dog bite cases. Bhushan, perhaps worried about the public image of those who feed stray packs, stated that such comments often get “misinterpreted” once reported.

Justice Mehta, however, was in no mood to coddle these sentiments. He responded that the observations were made in response to what the court described as “unrealistic arguments” advanced on behalf of dog lovers. These activists often argue as if they live in a utopian world where stray dogs are harmless plush toys. When Bhushan suggested that the court’s remark about holding dog feeders responsible was sarcastic, Justice Mehta firmly denied it, stating that the bench was “serious” and not being sarcastic at all. The court signaled that if you feed the danger, you should be ready to pay for the damage.

‘Have you observed what your client is stating?’

The proceedings took a turn towards the theatrical when Ramachandran, while arguing the matter, lectured the court that since proceedings were televised, both the Bar and the Bench had a duty to remain circumspect. This attempt to police the judges prompted Justice Vikram Nath to ask whether he had actually examined the nature of statements made by his client outside court.

“Your client has committed contempt. We have not taken action, that is our magnanimity. Have you seen what she says, her body language?” Justice Nath remarked. The court essentially highlighted that while the lawyer preached caution, his client was busy displaying aggression and disrespect in the public sphere. When Ramachandran stated that he had previously appeared for Ajmal Kasab as amicus curiae, the bench responded sharply to shut down the comparison. “Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court, but your client has,” Justice Nath said, cementing the fact that Gandhi’s conduct was legally worse than that of a terrorist in terms of courtroom respect.

Queries regarding plans, budget, and responsibility

During submissions, Ramachandran tried to shift the focus to bureaucracy, arguing that effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control Rules and the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination was crucial to resolving the stray dog problem. He pointed out that while NAPRE clearly identified hurdles and assigned responsibilities, over 30 states had failed to formulate their mandated action plans.

The bench, however, exposed the hypocrisy of the activism. They questioned why Gandhi’s application was silent on budgetary allocation. Justice Mehta asked what contribution Gandhi had made towards funding or implementing these policies during her tenure as a Union Minister and animal rights advocate. It seems easy to preach compassion when it is someone else's money, but when asked what she had personally done to fund these solutions, the silence was deafening. Ramachandran replied that he could not provide an oral answer to the query.

Remarks from Maneka Gandhi

The court’s stern observations stem from Maneka Gandhi’s earlier public criticism of Supreme Court directions ordering the removal of stray dogs from sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, and bus and railway stations. To a rational mind, keeping predatory packs away from sick patients and school children is common sense. However, she had termed the orders “impractical”, questioned their feasibility, and criticised what she described as a lack of coordination and infrastructure.

It seems Maneka Gandhi believes that human safety is what is truly "impractical" when it inconveniences a dog. While the bench did not specify which of Gandhi’s remarks amounted to contempt, it made clear that public comments undermining the authority of the court would not be tolerated, even as it chose restraint for now.

Family of victim claim medical apathy caused death, bench forbids guessing the reason for death

The hearing then shifted from the theoretical to the tragic, highlighting the human cost that activists often ignore. During the hearing, the parents of the six-year-old girl whose death led the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the stray dog menace also made submissions. Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon appeared for the parents. He informed the court that multiple hospitals were guilty of negligence as they refused timely treatment to the child.

He submitted that while the child received three doses of the rabies vaccine at Ambedkar Hospital in Rohini, she was referred from one hospital to another for treatment for her injuries, including Safdarjung Hospital, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, and Lady Hardinge Hospital. All of them, according to Dhillon, refused to treat her citing one reason or another. Dhillon further told the court that the stray dog which attacked the child had previously bitten at least four other people in the area, yet no remedial action was taken by the authorities.

Responding to a query from the bench on the cause of death, he stated that it was a case of acute viral illness following a dog bite. After Dhillon completed his submissions, some counsels appearing for the dog lovers—displaying a shocking lack of empathy—attempted to contest the cause of death. They argued that the post-mortem report was not conclusive and that rabies could only be confirmed through brain tissue analysis. One counsel even claimed that the child was eating and drinking in her final days, which, according to her, was inconsistent with rabies.

The bench reacted strongly to these submissions, clearly disgusted by the attempt to minimize a child's death to protect a narrative. “You are trying to suggest her death was due to natural causes?” Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, before prohibiting any further arguments or speculation on the child’s death. Both Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Mehta directed counsels to refrain from commenting on the facts of the case. Furthermore, another counsel appearing for a victim of a dog attack pointed out that there is no mechanism to fix responsibility when a stray dog repeatedly bites people. He further argued that since animals are slaughtered for human consumption, violent stray dogs should also be firmly dealt with in the interest of public safety.

Public safety crisis in India

The ongoing proceedings have brought the issue of the stray dog menace into the limelight since the hearing began in August last year. The stray dog issue is not a peripheral civic concern but a nationwide public safety crisis that the system has repeatedly failed to confront properly.

Since the Animal Birth Control Rules came into effect in 2001, the stray dog population and dog bite incidents have sharply increased across the country. Though there was a dip in stray dog bite cases in 2020 and the following years, this can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, as the nation was under strict lockdown. When the lockdown was lifted, stray dog bite incidents began to rise again and, over the years, have increased sharply in number. Altercations between dog lovers and the general public have also increased due to safety concerns. The Supreme Court took cognisance of the matter after a six-year-old child died of rabies. Several orders have since been passed by the court, including the removal of dogs from public and private institutions such as colleges, hospitals, schools, railway stations, and bus stands.

Years of policy paralysis, selective activism, weak enforcement of existing rules, and the absence of accountability have ensured that responsibility is endlessly deflected while victims, often children and the elderly, pay the price. Now, as the apex court is hearing the matter to bring a balance between compassion and public safety, the larger question remains unresolved, whether human life will finally be placed above ideological posturing, and whether governments and institutions will be compelled to act decisively rather than hide behind frameworks that exist largely on paper. The hearing will continue on 28th January at 2 pm, with the court set to hear further submissions from the amicus curiae, and states and UTs.