The Supreme Court, while hearing the case related to stray dogs on Tuesday (January 20, 2026), reprimanded former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi. The court said that the comments made by Maneka Gandhi regarding the court are contempt of court. Giving a sharp reaction, the court has also asked her how much budget she had provided for dogs when she was the Union Minister.
Maneka Gandhi’s side was also presented in today’s hearing before the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria. He gave suggestions like better care of dogs, population control and availability of anti-rabies vaccine. During this, the court took his lawyer to task and said, ‘We have seen the podcasts of your client. It was also seen what kind of language and body language was being used towards the court. These things can be seen as contempt. Our generosity is that we are not doing anything about it. The court also asked the question that given the kind of suggestions being given to him, how much budget did his client provide for dogs when he was the Union Minister.
According to the report of Live Law, the court said this when senior advocate Prashant Bhushan was arguing on behalf of dog lovers and he objected to the court’s comments in the last hearing. Then Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran said that there is a need to be cautious while being in the bar and bench.
Prashant Bhushan said, ‘Your Lordship, during the hearing, both of you judges have made some comments, which have been misinterpreted.’ On this, Justice Sandeep Mehta said that those comments were made on the unrealistic arguments which were given by the dog lovers. Prashant Bhushan again said, ‘Sometimes the court’s comments can have serious consequences. When the bench sarcastically said that those who feed should be held responsible, people paid attention to it.
Justice Sandeep Mehta said on Prashant Bhushan’s comment that it was not said sarcastically, but seriously. Then Advocate Raju Ramachandran said, ‘Being a member of the Bar, I also want to say something. Court hearings are telecast. So it is our duty to remain alert both on the bar and the bench. Justice Sandeep Mehta said on this, ‘We know and we also take care of it.’
After some time, Justice Vikram Nath said to Advocate Raju Ramachandran, ‘You are asking us to be cautious, do you know what statements your client is making.’ Advocate Raju Ramachandran said on this that yes, if I can appear for Ajmal Kasab then why not for Maneka Gandhi. Raju Ramachandran was appointed amicus curiae to present Ajmal Kasab’s case in the Supreme Court in the Mumbai attack case.
Justice Vikram Nath told Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer, ‘Your client committed contempt. We did not take any action, this is our generosity. What is she saying, what is her body language. The judge asked advocate Raju Ramachandran, ‘Your client has been a minister and is an animal activist. Explain why budgetary allocation is not mentioned in your petition. What has been the contribution of your client in all this? On this Raju Ramachandran said that he cannot say anything verbally regarding this.
Now the Supreme Court will hold the next hearing in the case related to stray dogs on January 28. The court has so far heard other parties including animal rights activists and NGOs. The court said that it will hear the side of amicus curiae, NHAI and the Center and states in the next hearing.
(With inputs from Nipun Sehgal)
Also read:-
Republic Day 2026: From Silent Warriors to Bhairav ​​Battalion, the world will see India’s strength in the parade on January 26.
