Supreme Court Takes a Stand Against Maneka Gandhi's Controversial Comments on Stray Dogs

The Supreme Court has voiced its displeasure regarding former Union minister Maneka Gandhi's remarks on its orders related to stray dogs, suggesting her comments may constitute contempt of court. During a hearing, the justices questioned her representative about the nature of her statements and the lack of accountability in addressing stray dog issues. The court has previously indicated that states may be required to pay significant compensation for dog bite incidents and emphasized the need for better enforcement of regulations concerning stray animals. This ongoing case raises important questions about responsibility and policy in managing stray dog populations in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 20, 2026, 16:37 IST

Supreme Court's Response to Maneka Gandhi's Criticism

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with former Union minister Maneka Gandhi's comments that criticized its orders regarding stray dogs, suggesting that her statements could be seen as contempt of court.

A panel consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N V Anjaria remarked that Gandhi has made numerous unconsidered comments about various individuals.

The bench challenged senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who represented Gandhi, by asking if he had discussed the nature of her remarks with her or listened to her podcast, emphasizing that she has made indiscriminate comments without due thought.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the court decided not to pursue contempt proceedings against Gandhi, citing its own leniency.

Justice Mehta inquired about any budgetary measures that Gandhi, in her previous role, had contributed to in addressing the stray dog issue.

Ramachandran defended Gandhi by stating that he has represented even controversial figures like Ajmal Kasab, asserting that budget allocations are a matter of policy.

Justice Nath countered, stating that while Kasab did not commit contempt, Gandhi's actions did.

The bench clarified that its previous comments regarding the accountability of dog feeders were made seriously, not sarcastically, during the ongoing discussions.

The court had previously indicated on January 13 that it would require states to provide substantial compensation for dog bite incidents and hold dog feeders responsible for such occurrences.

Additionally, the court raised concerns about the lack of enforcement of regulations concerning stray animals over the past five years.