The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 20, 2026) while hearing a case related to stray dogs, reprimanded former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi. The court said that the comments made by Maneka Gandhi about the court are contempt of court. Reacting strongly to this, the court also asked her how much budget she had allocated for dogs when she was the Union Minister.
During today’s hearing before the bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria, arguments were also presented on behalf of Maneka Gandhi. He made suggestions like better care of dogs, population control and availability of anti-rabies vaccine. During this, the court reprimanded his lawyer and said, “We have seen the podcasts of your client. We have also seen what kind of language and body language is being used towards the court. These things can be considered as contempt of court. It is our leniency that we are not taking any action on this.” The court also questioned how much budget she had allocated for dogs when her client was a Union Minister, considering the suggestions given.
According to a report by Live Law, the court made these comments when senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the dog lovers, was arguing and had objected to the court’s comments during the previous hearing. At that time, Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer Raju Ramachandran said that there is a need to be cautious while being at the Bar and Bench.
Prashant Bhushan said, “My Lords, during the hearing, both of you judges made some comments which have been misinterpreted.” On this, Justice Sandeep Mehta said that this comment was made on unrealistic arguments presented by dog lovers. Prashant Bhushan then said, “Sometimes, the Court’s comments can have serious consequences. For example, when the Bench sarcastically said that people who feed dogs should be held responsible, people took notice.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, responding to Prashant Bhushan’s comment, said that this statement was not made in sarcasm, but in seriousness. Advocate Raju Ramachandran then said, “As a member of the Bar, I also want to say something. The court proceedings are being telecasted. Therefore, it is our duty for both the Bar and the Bench to remain alert.” Justice Sandeep Mehta responded, “We know this, and we are keeping this in mind.”
After a while, Justice Vikram Nath asked advocate Raju Ramachandran, “You are asking us to be cautious, but do you know what your client is saying?” Advocate Raju Ramachandran replied, “Yes, if I can represent Ajmal Kasab, why not Maneka Gandhi?” Raju Ramachandran was appointed amicus curiae to represent Ajmal Kasab in the Supreme Court in the Mumbai attacks case.
Justice Vikram Nath told Maneka Gandhi’s lawyer, “Your client has committed contempt of court. It is our generosity that we have not taken any action. What is she saying? What is her body language?” The judge asked advocate Raju Ramachandran, “Your client is a former minister and animal activist. Tell us why there is no mention of budget allocation in your petition. What has been your client’s contribution in all this?” On this Raju Ramachandran said that he cannot comment on this verbally.
The Supreme Court will now hear the case related to stray dogs on January 28. The court has so far heard animal rights activists and NGOs, and other parties. The court said it will hear the amicus curiae, NHAI, and the central and state governments in the next hearing.
