New Delhi [India], January 20 : Taking exception to former Union Minister Maneka Gandhi's remarks against the apex court's orders on the suo moto case over the increasing number of stray dog attacks, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the former leader's remarks were contemptuous.
An anguished bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria also told the counsel representing Gandhi that his client, on her podcast, is making comments on anyone and anything she likes.
"Have you heard her podcast? What is her body language? What she says and how she says. You said the court should be circumspect. On the other hand, your client is making all sorts of comments on anybody and anything she likes!", Justice Vikram Nath said.
The bench added that it's the Court's magnanimity that it is not issuing criminal contempt against the former leader.
"A little while ago, you were telling the court we should be circumspect. Did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making? Your client has committed contempt. We are not taking cognisance of that. That is our magnanimity", the bench remarked.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Gandhi, was making submissions over the issue pertaining to an increase in the number of rabid stray dogs that spread diseases and how it could be controlled. The senior lawyer stated that implementing a rabies control program is integral to the ABC rules.
He stated that such a programme would ensure the availability of anti-rabies vaccines and serum, professional capacity building, and the promotion of appropriate animal-bite management.
"It encourages pre-exposure prophylaxis for high-risk groups, strengthens surveillance of animal bites and rabies cases, enhances diagnostic capacity, and promotes operational research on rabies," Ramachandran had added.
Interestingly, on the issue of transparency regarding proper sterilisation of stray dogs across various cities, the Supreme Court, during today's hearing, orally remarked that dogs could be asked to carry their own sterilisation certificates.
The remark came from Justice Sandeep Mehta in jest (on a lighter mood) when Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the applicants, told the Supreme Court that though sterilisation reduces the aggressiveness of stray dogs, the real problem is the lack of effective and transparent sterilisation in many cities. Bhushan submitted that authorities must be held accountable through a public reporting system that allows citizens to flag unsterilised stray dogs on a website. He suggested assigning designated officials to act on such complaints and said ultrasound tests could be used in doubtful cases to confirm whether a dog has been sterilised.
Responding from the Bench, Justice Mehta remarked sarcastically that dogs could be asked to carry sterilisation certificates themselves.
"Why can't the dogs be asked to carry the certificate themselves?" Justice Mehta said.
Bhushan cautioned that court remarks can sometimes have unintended consequences, citing earlier observations of the apex court in which it said that dog feeders should be held responsible for dog bites.
"Sometimes the remarks of the court lead to unfortunate consequences. For example, your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic", Bhushan said.
Justice Vikram Nath, however, firmly rejected this, clarifying that the court's observation on feeder responsibility was made seriously and not in jest.
"No, we didn't make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously", Justice Mehta says.
The Court will hear its suo moto case on the stray dog menace. Today, it heard submissions from all applicants involved in the matter. On the next day of the hearing, it will hear the submissions of the Centre and various States.