Supreme Court judges on Tuesday voiced sharp displeasure over public comments made by former Union minister Maneka Gandhi on earlier judicial orders concerning stray dogs, remarking during proceedings that the statements amounted to contempt of court, even as the bench stopped short of initiating formal action.The observations came from a three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice N V Anjaria while hearing an ongoing matter linked to the regulation and management of stray dogs. The judges said the former minister had made sweeping assertions without due consideration of the record, adding that the remarks appeared to cast aspersions broadly rather than engaging with the legal reasoning behind the court’s directions.
Addressing the courtroom, the bench observed that Gandhi’s statements crossed a line by questioning the authority of the judiciary and the integrity of its decision-making process. The judges said the language used suggested an attack not merely on a particular order but on “everyone” connected with the adjudication, a formulation they said undermined institutional respect. The court emphasised that criticism of judgments must remain within settled bounds, particularly when matters involve public safety, animal welfare and competing civic interests.
Despite the strong language, the bench made it clear it would not trigger contempt proceedings. The judges said the court was exercising restraint and “magnanimity”, signalling that the objective was to reaffirm the limits of acceptable public commentary rather than to escalate the dispute through punitive action. The observation, however, leaves little ambiguity about how the court views statements that impute motives or disregard the context of judicial orders.
The stray dog issue has been before courts across jurisdictions, reflecting a tension between animal welfare concerns and public safety after reports of attacks in residential areas. Previous directions from the apex court have sought to balance constitutional protections for animals with the responsibility of civic authorities to ensure the safety of residents, including children and the elderly. The bench reiterated that its orders are shaped by statutory frameworks, expert inputs and constitutional principles, not by political or ideological considerations.
During the hearing, the judges underlined that public figures carry a heightened responsibility when commenting on pending or decided cases. Remarks that mischaracterise judicial directions, the bench said, risk inflaming public sentiment and complicating the implementation of lawful orders on the ground. The court added that disagreement with outcomes cannot justify language that erodes public confidence in institutions.
Gandhi, known for her long-standing advocacy on animal rights, has previously criticised municipal approaches to stray animal control and vaccination programmes. The court acknowledged that advocacy plays a role in democratic discourse but stressed that advocacy does not grant immunity from constitutional limits when it veers into commentary on the judiciary itself. The bench noted that even robust debate must respect the separation of powers and the authority vested in courts to interpret the law.
Legal observers say the court’s stance reflects a broader effort to draw a clear boundary between permissible criticism and contempt, especially in an era of amplified public discourse. While the judiciary has consistently upheld free expression, it has also maintained that imputing improper motives to judges or suggesting disregard for law crosses into prohibited territory.