3 min readNew DelhiJan 20, 2026 10:23 PM IST
First published on: Jan 20, 2026 at 10:08 PM IST
Taking a stern exception to former Union minister Maneka Gandhi criticising its intervention in the stray dogs matter, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it was due to its “magnanimity” that no action has been taken against Gandhi despite her committing contempt of court.
“Your client has committed contempt. We have not taken action, that’s our magnanimity,” Justice Vikram Nath, presiding over a three-judge bench hearing the matter, told senior advocate Raju Ramachandran who appeared for Gandhi.
The exchange started with advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the intervenors in the matter, objecting to certain comments made by the bench in earlier hearings.
Hearing the matter on January 13, Justice Nath had said, “…For every dog bite, and every death or injury caused to a child or old or feeble person, we are likely to fix heavy compensation to be paid by the state, for not having done anything for the last 75 years. And also, liability and accountability on all those who claim that they are feeding dogs and wanting to protect them. Protect them, fair enough, you take them home. Keep them inside your campus, your house. Why should dogs be loitering around everywhere and frightening people, biting them, causing deaths, chasing?”
On Tuesday, Bhushan told the bench, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, “I want to say, your lordships have been making remarks during hearing, some of them get misinterpreted.”’
Justice Mehta said the court had made the remarks as the dog lovers had made some “unrealistic arguments”. To this, Bhushan said, “Sometimes, remarks of the court lead to consequences. Like, suppose, the bench sarcastically made a remark that feeders should be made responsible.” He added that it was reported widely.
Justice Meha said the court was not being sarcastic. “No, no, not at all sarcastic. We were serious. We don’t know what we will do. But we were serious,” he said.
Ramachandran sought to remind that “proceedings are televised” and “there’s duty on both bar and bench to be circumspect”.
Justice Mehta said the court is aware, which is why “we are refraining” from saying many things.
As the hearing progressed, Justice Nath told Ramachandran, “You were telling us the court should be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of statements your client has been making?”
“Of course,” said the senior counsel, adding he had even appeared for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab as amicus curiae appointed by the court.
“Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt of court but your client has. We have not taken action. That’s our magnanimity. You see what she says, her body language,” Justice Nath said.
Ramachandran responded, “Lawyers and judges will be on different planes when it comes to public comments.”
As Ramachandran addressed the court on Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE) policy, Justice Mehta asked what had been Gandhi’s contribution, as a former minister in the fight.
Maneka Gandhi is a former Union minister, animal rights activist, and environmentalist. (Source: FB) 
Share
