Stray Dogs Case| We Are Not Taking Cognizance On Contempt, This Is Our Magnanimity: Supreme Court To Maneka Gandhi

The Supreme Court, today, expressed displeasure over former Union minister Maneka Gandhi's remarks criticising the court orders in the stray dog matter, saying that she has committed contempt of court.

Previously, the Court said that it will consider the imposition of heavy compensation for States for not making the requisite arrangements and the dog feeders for every dogbite and death.

The Bench was hearing a suo motu case, initiated on July 28, over a media report on stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital. On August 11, the Court had directed the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes. Such detained dogs are not be released under any circumstances.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria ordered, "We have heard the arguments on behalf of the individuals, NGOs, Institutions...List this matter on 28.01.2026. On the said date, the Court will hear the arguments on behalf of counsels of NHAI, all States and Union Territories."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared in one of the Applications and submitted, "The problem thought the sterilization has worked in cities like Lucknow, Jaipur and Goa, where the dog bite has come down very substantially or almost disappeared. This system of sterlization has unfortunately not worked in most cities...there should be an effective system where people can report stray dogs who apparently seem to be non-sterlized...it should be recorded on a website..."

Justice Sandeep Mehta said, "Why can't we ask the dog to carry the certificate with themselves?"

Bhushan said, "Your lordships have been making remarks during hearings, which is perfectly normal. But unfortunately, some of these remarks get misinterpreted...sometimes the remarks of the Court lead to unfortunate consequences, particularly when they are misinterpreted...For example your lordships said feeders should be made responsible for dog bites. Perhaps it was sarcastic."

Justice Nath responded, "No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously."

Bhushan said, "Feeders are being beaten up, etc., and they are taking refuge under these remarks."

The court said, "These are made during oral arguments during a conversation with counsel. Doesn’t make any difference. Sorry."

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran said, "These things are being televised. Therefore, there is a duty of both the bar and bench."

The court replied, "Yes, because of this, only we are restraining ourselves from making many more remarks." 

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Union Minister Maneka Gandhi, submitted, "The credentials of my client are that she has been not only a lifelong animal rights activist, but also a union cabinet minister for many years. So she has experience on both sides, and she brings a different perspective. "

Justice Nath said, "A little while ago, you were telling the Court that we should be circumspect in making observations and all...Did you ever find out from your client what kind of remarks and what kinds of statements she had been making?..."

Raju said, "If I can appear for Ajmal Kasab, I can appear Milords for a former Union Minister."

Justice Nath replied, "Ajmal Kasab did not commit contempt. Your client has committed contempt. We may not taking cognizance on that. That is our magnanimity.... Have you heard her podcasts?...You see what she says, what she talks like, what is the body language...We are telling you this because you made comment that the court should be circumspect and not making nay comment. On the other hand, your client is making all kinds of comments on anybody and anything she likes."

Raju replied, "Since it is not a contempt action, I am not saying more on that."

Ramachandran emphasized that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules are an indispensable component of the broader National Rabies Control Program. To effectively eliminate dog-mediated rabies, the state must ensure the consistent availability of Anti-Rabies Vaccines (ARV) and Anti-Rabies Serum (ARS), while simultaneously building the capacity of professionals in modern animal bite management. This includes encouraging pre-exposure prophylaxis for high-risk groups and strengthening the diagnostic and surveillance infrastructure to track animal bites and rabies cases more accurately.

Furthermore, Ramachandran argued that the ABC Rules provide the necessary framework for promoting operational research and stabilized population control, which are essential to the program's success. By integrating these public health strategies—ranging from laboratory diagnostics to on-ground sterilization—the ABC Rules serve as the primary mechanism for implementing a holistic, scientific approach to rabies eradication.

Advocate Bharti Tyagi submitted a few international practices dealing with the issue. She mentioned the country of the Netherlands and their model to control stray dogs. 

Advocate N.M. Kapadia submitted that aggressive dogs should not be seen as permanent threats, noting that a rehabilitation centre in Rajkot has successfully "calmed down" and rehabilitated hundreds of aggressive animals. He cautioned the Court against the mass removal of stray dogs, citing a historical precedent from Gujarat in 1994. According to Kapadia, a widespread campaign to clear dogs in the state led to an uncontrolled surge in the rodent population, which ultimately contributed to the devastating outbreak of the plague.

Advocate Jasdeep Dhillon represented a case involving a six-year-old victim who died of rabies following a series of systemic failures. On June 30, 2025, the child was viciously bitten by a dog that had reportedly attacked four others in the same society. Despite receiving a first vaccine dose immediately, her condition worsened. The Counsel highlighted a harrowing "referral loop" where the victim was turned away by Kalavati Saran and Lady Hardinge hospitals due to a lack of equipment, before finally being moved through RML and Safdarjung hospitals.

The victim's condition deteriorated on July 21, and she passed away on July 26. Dhillon pointed to the discharge certificate, which confirmed rabies as the cause of death, and argued for the imposition of strict liability. He urged the Court to hold errant officials and negligent hospital administrations accountable for the lack of specialized care and the failure to manage a known aggressive animal in the community.

Advocate Aishwarya Singh submitted that the state is failing in its duty to protect citizens from a 100% preventable disease, pointing out critical gaps in India's current reactive framework. Citing data on the poor infrastructure of treatment centres, she noted that 54% lack basic wound-washing facilities and 84% suffer from vaccine stock-outs.

Her primary suggestion focused on a shift toward Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), which acts as a "shield" before a bite occurs. While India currently relies almost exclusively on Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP)—treating victims only after they are bitten—Singh highlighted that the WHO has specifically recommended the PrEP model for high-risk contexts like India to ensure immediate immunity and prevent fatalities.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared on behalf of Akash Shukla, a dog psychologist.

Justice Sandeep Mehta said, "He’s the Cesar Millan of India?"

Dave replied, "Yes. He may be called that. In man-animal conflict, if the state enters into the area of the wildlife, the wildlife is protected. If wildlife enters the human habitat still wildlife is protected. On a personal basis, us on this side are not casting any aspersions on this matter from our side. There is a lot of bad publicity. Coming out with videos, publicity ought not to be done."

He added that there is a need for specialized human resources within municipal corporations to bridge the gap between policy and implementation. He suggested that local bodies must employ and train personnel specifically equipped to handle complex scenarios, such as identifying aggressive dogs or managing rabies outbreaks, under dedicated supervision.

Moving beyond logistics, Dave made a plea for judicial compassion, urging that the animals "cannot speak" for themselves. He argued for a society that accommodates stray animals through peaceful coexistence, suggesting that a balanced approach—combining professional municipal management with a spirit of empathy—is the only way to achieve a humane and lasting resolution.

The Court has concluded the submissions on behalf of individuals, NGOs, and institutions in the matters pertaining to the stray dogs in the country. The Court will now hear the State Governments and Union Territories in the matter on Jaunary 28, 2026.

Background

Previously, on January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court said it would not go into the allegations of harassment of women dog feeders and caregivers by purported anti-feeder vigilantes since it was a law-and-order issue, and the aggrieved persons could lodge FIRs about it.

The Supreme Court proceedings on January 9, 2026, highlighted a deep divide between public safety concerns and the scientific management of stray dogs. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the ABC Rules 2023 are the result of decades of parliamentary deliberation and that sterilization, not culling, remains the only effective solution. She blamed the current "catastrophe" on regulatory failure and the underutilization of funds. However, the Bench expressed frustration with the lack of progress, with Justice Nath warning that the Court might fix heavy compensation on States and dog feeders for every bite or death, emphasizing that the effects of a dog bite are lifelong.

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar strongly challenged the ABC Rules, calling them ultra vires and in conflict with over 60 laws. He raised an ecological alarm regarding 50,000 feral dogs in Ladakh threatening endangered species like the snow leopard. Datar further argued that street dogs have no right to reside in public institutions or gated communities if the majority of residents oppose them.

Justice Mehta supported this concern by citing the "terminal" threat of canine distemper virus spread by dogs to forest wildlife and comparing the situation to the invasive python crisis in Florida.

On the welfare side, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand and others argued that mass removal is counterproductive due to the "vacuum effect," where more aggressive dogs move into cleared territories. They suggested that dogs also play a vital role in urban ecosystems by controlling rodent populations. Counsel for singer Mohit Chauhan and other advocates pushed for the formal recognition of "individual feeders" as partners to authorities, suggesting that compassionate management and adoption policies for "Indie" breeds are more sustainable than relocation.

The Court also addressed massive logistical hurdles, including a severe shortage of accredited ABC centers—only 76 nationwide to manage 5.2 crore dogs. Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal estimated a requirement of ₹26,800 crore for infrastructure and proposed a 60:40 fund-sharing model between the Centre and States. With the Bench growing weary of the lengthy arguments, Justice Mehta remarked that the proceedings had become more of a "public platform" than a court case, noting that "no one has argued for human beings so compassionately" as they have for animals. 

The Court, on January 7, 2026, had remarked against the local authorities for their failure to monitor and implement statutory rules effectively, leading to an uncontrollable surge in stray animal incidents.

The Court, on August 22, had partially modified its previous order directing the capture and shifting of dogs from the streets in Delhi NCR. The Three Judges Bench directed that the stray dogs that will be picked up shall be sterilized, vaccinated and released back to the same area from which they were picked up. However, stray-dogs inflicted with rabies or with aggressive behaviour were not to be released into the streets. The court has also proposed to expand the scope of this matter beyond the confines of New Delhi and the NCR region.

While responding to a Petitioner in the stray dogs case who objected to some Rules framed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC), saying 'inhuman' treatment was being meted out to them, the Supreme Court had said that a video will be played in the next hearing, "asking you what is humanity".

On November 7, taking note of the "alarming rise" in dog bite incidents within institutional areas like educational institutions, hospitals and railway stations, the Apex Court had directed the forthwith relocation of stray canines to designated shelters after due sterilisation and vaccination.

Previously, while hearing the Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the issue of dog-bites reported in Delhi and the areas on the outskirts, urged genuine stray dog lovers to take care and upkeep of the stray dogs responsibly at the dog shelters or pounds. The Court urged thus while directing the State of NCT of Delhi, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to pick up all stray dogs from the localities and public places in Delhi and put them in shelter homes.

Cause Title: In Re: City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh [SMW(C) No. 5/2025 Diary No. 41706/2025]