The Supreme Court’s reference to Charles Darwin’s theory during the hearing of a major stray dog control case has triggered nationwide discussion. The apex court recently made it clear that its 2025 directions regarding the removal and regulation of stray dogs from public spaces would continue in the interest of public safety and health. During the proceedings, the bench drew parallels between the increasing stray dog menace and the concept of “Survival of the Fittest,” raising concerns over growing insecurity in public spaces.
Renowned scientist Charles Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution, which states that all living organisms evolve over time through the process of natural selection. One of the key principles of the theory is “Survival of the Fittest,” meaning that only those capable of adapting and becoming stronger can survive. The theory explains how, in conditions of competition and limited resources, stronger beings survive while weaker ones struggle to exist.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N. V. Anjaria observed that uncontrolled stray dog attacks in urban areas could push society towards a “jungle rule” situation. The court warned that if the stray dog population and related attacks continue unchecked, ordinary citizens may be forced into an environment where only the strong can protect themselves.
The bench expressed concern that vulnerable sections of society, including children, women, and elderly citizens, are increasingly becoming victims of stray dog attacks. The court stressed that a democratic society must function under the “Rule of Law” and not under conditions where fear dominates public life. It further stated that ensuring the safety of citizens is the responsibility of governments and that public order cannot be compromised.
Dismissing petitions filed by dog lovers and the Animal Welfare Board, the Supreme Court upheld its earlier directions on stray dog control measures. The court observed that the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules have not been fully successful in controlling the stray dog population. It also warned state governments that strict action, including contempt proceedings, could be initiated against authorities failing to implement the court’s orders properly. The verdict has been viewed as a major relief for citizens affected by stray dog attacks, while drawing criticism from some animal welfare groups.