The Supreme Court on Wednesday voiced sharp criticism of animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi over statements she made in a recent podcast concerning the court’s ongoing hearings on stray dog management. The bench remarked that her comments and manner of expression amounted to disrespect towards the judiciary.

A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria told senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Gandhi, that the court had shown restraint by not initiating contempt proceedings. The judges questioned whether the lawyer had heard the podcast and observed that Gandhi’s tone and “body language” reflected disregard for judicial authority.

“You had urged the court to be careful in its approach. Have you considered what your client has been saying publicly? Her statements clearly invite contempt action. It is only our magnanimity that we are not proceeding,” the bench remarked.

Ramachandran refrained from responding directly, stating that the matter before the court was not a contempt case. During the exchange, he mentioned having earlier represented 26/11 convict Ajmal Kasab, to which Justice Nath responded that Kasab had not insulted the court.

The discussion later shifted to measures for controlling stray dog populations. Ramachandran spoke about vaccination, rabies prevention and strengthening municipal capacity. The bench, however, questioned what tangible contribution Gandhi had made towards implementing such programmes despite her long public life and advocacy.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, told the court that scientific sterilisation reduces canine aggression but is poorly executed in most cities. He added that some of the court’s earlier oral remarks — particularly about holding dog feeders liable for attacks — were being misinterpreted and had led to harassment of volunteers.

Justice Nath clarified that the observation about fixing responsibility on feeders was made seriously and not as sarcasm. The bench noted that while courtroom exchanges are being widely broadcast, both lawyers and judges must exercise caution in public discourse.

Last week, the court had indicated it may direct state governments to award substantial compensation in cases where stray dog attacks result in death or serious injury, especially to children and senior citizens. It had also questioned the practice of feeding dogs in public spaces without accountability.