Supreme Court Clarifies Stance on Stray Dog Feeders, Accuses Maneka Gandhi of Contempt

Image Source: Internet

The Supreme Court has clarified its earlier remarks on holding stray dog feeders accountable for attacks, stating that the comments were made 'very seriously' and not in sarcasm. The clarification came after former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi made contemptuous remarks about the court and its proceedings. In a hearing on a batch of petitions concerning the management of stray dogs across the country, the court emphasized the need for effective implementation of sterilization programs to reduce aggressiveness and prevent dog bites. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for an intervenor, suggested that the core problem lay in the ineffective implementation of sterilization programs, despite evidence of success in places such as Jaipur and Goa. The court rejected the suggestion that its earlier remarks were made sarcastically, adding that oral observations made during court proceedings cannot be diluted. The bench also pulled up Gandhi for making contemptuous comments about the court in public forums, including podcasts. The court's clarification came against the backdrop of its strong observations on January 13, when it warned that states could be made to pay 'heavy compensation' for every dog bite and death caused by stray dogs, and that dog feeders could also be held accountable where attacks resulted in serious or lifelong consequences. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 28, when the court will hear submissions from the amicus curiae, the National Highways Authority of India, and all states and Union territories. The bench reiterated that it was not questioning the validity of the ABC Rules or animal protection laws, but was concerned with their chronic non-implementation and the growing public safety risks arising from it.