NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that it stood firmly by its earlier oral observations in the suo motu stray dogs case, including remarks that dog feeders may be held responsible for dog attacks, rejecting the contention that such comments were made sarcastically. 

While hearing a suo motu case concerning the management of stray dogs in public spaces, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan that certain oral remarks of the court during previous hearings had been misinterpreted and had allegedly led to attacks on dog feeders. 

“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 submitted. 

However, Justice Nath-led Bench rejected the submission, stating that the remarks were made “very seriously”. 

“No, we didn’t make it sarcastically. We said it very seriously,” the apex court said, adding that the nature of the remarks did not change merely because they were made during oral exchanges with counsel. 

During the hearing, Bhushan highlighted the uneven implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules across the country. 

He submitted that while sterilisation of stray dogs reduces aggression, the system has failed in most cities due to a lack of transparency and accountability. 

“This system of sterilisation has worked in places like Jaipur and Goa, but in most cities it has not. To make it effective, it must be transparent and ensure accountability,” Bhushan argued, proposing a mechanism through which citizens could report unsterilised stray dogs to designated authorities. 

At this, Justice Mehta quipped, “Why can’t we ask the dogs to carry the certificates themselves?” 

This prompted Bhushan to reiterate his concern that even remarks made in a lighter vein by the apex court could have serious repercussions on the ground. The apex court remarked that it was conscious of the fact that the proceedings were being live‑cast. 

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for former Union Minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi, also intervened, stating that both the Bar and the Bench had a duty to be circumspect in televised proceedings. 

In response, the Justice Nath‑led Bench said it was already exercising restraint and took strong exception to certain public comments made by the former Union Minister, observing that she had committed “contempt of court” through her statements against judges, though the apex court was not taking cognisance of them out of “magnanimity.” 

“As a little while ago you were telling the Court to be circumspect, did you find out what kind of remarks your client has been making?” it asked Ramachandran. 

The senior counsel replied that he was representing a cause and that lawyers and judges operated on a different plane from politicians. In his submissions, Ramachandran stressed the need for effective rabies and birth control programmes, highlighting that more than 30 states had failed to formulate under the National Action Plan for Rabies Elimination (NAPRE). 

Justice Mehta asked what role Maneka Gandhi, as a former Union Minister and animal rights activist, had played in securing funds for these schemes. 

Ramachandran said he could not provide an oral answer, adding that the details were contained in the scheme. In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court considered submissions highlighting conflicts between the Animal Birth Control Rules and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 

The petitioners argued that while the ABC Rules require dogs to be released after sterilisation and vaccination, the BNS allows local authorities to remove those causing public nuisance. The apex court will resume hearing the matter on January 28.