Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong displeasure over a controversial podcast released by a well-known animal rights activist and former Union Minister, triggering sharp observations from the bench during an ongoing hearing on the stray dog crisis across Indian cities.
Addressing senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for the activist, the court made it clear that while judicial caution was being requested, the language and tone used in the podcast crossed a serious line. The bench openly questioned whether the activist had even listened to her own remarks before publishing them.
In a stern warning, the court observed that the comments made in the podcast were not merely critical but could amount to contempt. “We are restraining ourselves for now,” the bench remarked, making it clear that the judiciary was consciously holding back despite provocation. The judges flagged the nature of the statements and indicated that such public commentary on pending matters could undermine the authority of the court.
The hearing took place amid growing concern over the increasing number of stray dogs in urban areas. One of the petitioners told the court that residents are facing daily hardship, saying, “People are losing sleep, children are unable to study, and fear has become part of daily life because of aggressive stray dogs.”
Government authorities informed the court that their hands are tied, stating that they are currently limited to vaccination and sterilisation programmes. However, petitioners countered this argument, pointing out that existing laws do allow the removal of animals if they become a public nuisance or threat.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing in the matter, said sterilisation is a globally accepted solution but criticised its poor execution in Indian cities. “The idea is correct, but implementation is weak,” he said, suggesting a transparent and accountable mechanism where citizens can report unsterilised dogs and ensure timely action by civic bodies.
Clarifying earlier remarks made by the court, Justice Vikram Nath stressed that the bench was completely serious when it spoke about fixing responsibility on dog feeders in cases of attacks. “That was not said lightly or as a joke,” he clarified, underlining that accountability cannot be avoided when public safety is at stake.
