The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that its earlier observations on fixing accountability on stray dog feeders were made “very seriously” and not in sarcasm, pulling up former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi for making what it described as contemptuous remarks about the court and its proceedings.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the management of stray dogs across the country, amid growing concerns over dog bite incidents and reported non-implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules by municipal authorities.
The clarification came during submissions by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, who cautioned that oral observations of the court, particularly those on holding dog feeders responsible for attacks, were being interpreted on the ground as sanctioning action against feeders. Bhushan suggested that the remark may have been made sarcastically.
The bench firmly rejected the suggestion. “No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously,” responded the court, adding that oral observations made during court proceedings could not be diluted merely because they were part of an exchange with counsel.
Bhushan submitted that the core problem lay in the ineffective implementation of sterilisation programmes in most cities, despite evidence of success in places such as Jaipur and Goa. He argued that sterilisation reduces aggressiveness and that transparency and accountability were essential to make the system work. Suggesting a public reporting mechanism for unsterilised dogs, Bhushan said designated authorities must be made responsible for responding to such complaints.
At this point, the bench interjected humorously, asking why dogs could not carry sterilisation certificates themselves, before reiterating that the issue before it involved serious questions of public safety.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, urged the court to exercise circumspection in its remarks, pointing out that proceedings were being televised. This prompted a sharp response from the bench, which accused Gandhi of making contemptuous comments about the court in public forums, including podcasts.
“A little while ago you were telling us to be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making? Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance of it — that is our magnanimity,” the bench said.
The bench further questioned Ramachandran on Gandhi’s contributions towards securing budgetary support for the implementation of animal welfare and rabies control schemes during her tenure as a Union minister. Ramachandran said he was unable to answer the query, stating that the details were contained in the scheme documents.
Maneka Gandhi had on 4 January said that the Supreme Court judges have done “disservice” to the nation as apex court’s order to remove stray dogs from public spaces has “divided” the country. Speaking to media persons, Maneka said: “Supreme Court has created an atmosphere of hate across India…What the judges have done is wrong by simply dividing India into people that hate one or one love species, through this they have done to disservice to India. The Animal Welfare Act is a very good act. They haven’t removed the act. They have simply said that you can act against the act. This is not correct.”
The court’s remarks on Tuesday came against the backdrop of its strong observations on January 13, when it warned that states could be made to pay “heavy compensation” for every dog bite and death caused by stray dogs, and that dog feeders could also be held accountable where attacks resulted in serious or lifelong consequences.
During that hearing, the bench had questioned why stray dogs should be allowed to roam freely in all areas and said that those feeding them must assume responsibility by keeping the animals within their premises. Emphasising that the impact of dog bites can be lifelong, particularly for children and the elderly, the court had criticised decades of inaction by states and local bodies in enforcing the ABC Rules.
On Tuesday, Bhushan reiterated that mass confinement of dogs in shelters could alter their behaviour and make them more aggressive, calling for the constitution of an expert committee to examine sterilisation and population control measures. His submissions concluded shortly thereafter.
Several senior advocates and counsel, including Siddhartha Dave, Rahul Kaushik, NM Kapadia, Jasdeep Dhillon, Jasmin Damkewala, Kishor Shinde, Aishwarya Singh and Kirti Ahuja, also advanced arguments on behalf of various stakeholders, including individuals, NGOs and institutions.
Recording that arguments of the private parties had concluded, the court listed the matter for further hearing on January 28, when it will hear submissions from the amicus curiae, the National Highways Authority of India, and all states and Union territories.
The bench reiterated that it was not questioning the validity of the ABC Rules or animal protection laws, but was concerned with their chronic non-implementation and the growing public safety risks arising from it.