Delhi Women Safety | Supreme Court Orders To Step Up Police Patrol, Verify Cab-Bus Drivers & Close Unauthorised Liquor Outlets

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed its concern by observing that the question was not merely whether appropriate directions exist, but whether those directions translate into sustained, visible, and verifiable action on the ground.

The bench took suo motu cognisance following reports of a series of sexual offences against minor girls and women in Delhi-NCR, referring to the alleged gangrape of a 17-year-old girl at Aastha Kunj Park, the alleged gangrape and murder of a teenage girl in Swaroop Nagar, and the alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in a moving sleeper bus. The bus travelled over 47 km from Greater Noida to Delhi without being intercepted. The bench stated that these incidents pointed to a systematic failure on the part of law enforcement and public administrative authorities to guarantee basic public safety, adding that expressions of solidarity were not enough and that accountability had to be fixed on the authorities.

Last month, the bench had passed interim directions after taking suo motu cognisance of the incidents. Senior Advocate Liz Mathew was appointed as amicus.

“The purpose of the present proceedings and the directions issued herein is not to multiply protocols or to create another layer of administrative compliance. Rather, it is to ascertain whether the mechanisms already devised by the police are operating as living instruments of preventive policing or have those remained substantially confined to the realm of mere paperwork,” it observed on Monday.

Before the bench, Mathew submitted that there was an immediate need for enhanced beat patrolling across Delhi. She also pointed to the 2020 Comptroller and Auditor General's Report which highlighted a shortage of around 39% in police staff across active duties such as beat patrol and investigation. The finding came from an audit of six of fifteen police districts and seventy-two police stations.

With regards to grievance redressal, Mathew listed several platforms for complaints about public-safety deficiencies, including the Chief Minister Jan Sunwai Portal, PWD Seva 2.0, helpline numbers including 311 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi), 311 (New Delhi Municipal Corporation) and the Delhi Police 112 Helpline. She submitted that the multiplicity of platforms confuses illiterate and lay persons as to which authority to approach. She added that many people may lack smartphones or digital literacy. She also suggested QR codes for monitoring police patrolling, with automated timestamping and geo-mapping/geo-fencing to ensure accountability.

The Union government, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, apprised the bench that senior officials of the Delhi government and the Delhi Police, along with officials from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), MCD, NDMC and the Ministry of Women & Child Development, had begun joint deliberations, taking steps towards “prompt compliance” with the earlier interim directions passed by the bench.

The Court stated that the objective of the proceedings is to identify and address deficiencies in existing mechanisms for crime prevention and emergency response, and to have the respondents identify and address any gap in policy and their implementation.

Broken Windows Theory

Applying the Broken Windows theory by Prof. James Q Wilson and George L Kelling, the bench observed as under:

“A broken or inadequate streetlight, a non-functional CCTV camera, an unmonitored dark stretch, or an unaddressed public complaint may individually appear as minor administrative or infrastructural lapses. However, when such deficiencies remain visible and unattended over a period of time, they collectively convey a perception of neglect and diminished vigilance.”

“Deficiencies which are capable of being identified and remedied ought not to be left unattended until they manifest themselves in an actual incident of crime. The objective must be to intervene at the stage at which signs of neglect or vulnerability first emerge, so that public spaces, by reason of avoidable deficiencies in lighting, surveillance and patrolling, do not create conditions conducive to disorder or facilitate the commission of crimes,” the bench further observed.

The bench also noted that crime detection and prevention is as important as solving crimes and ensuring prosecution. It emphasised real-time monitoring of police patrolling and CCTV through dedicated control-room command centres or war rooms, which must feed into a field-level response mechanism.

“Pursuit of preventive policing cannot become a justification for arbitrary or excessive or disproportionate exercise of police powers. The police must act firmly where the law requires intervention, but such intervention must remain within the bounds of legality, proportionality and accountability,” the Court cautioned that preventive policing cannot justify excess. It added that citizens must be protected “not only from crime, but equally from unlawful or disproportionate exercise of State power.”

Directions Issued:

Notably, the bench issued directions that the following measures be undertaken immediately:

Enhanced beat patrolling across Delhi, particularly around educational institutions and zones flagged under the vulnerability mapping as directed on 28.09.2026.

Strict verification of drivers and assistants of government and private buses, and of cabs, taxis and rickshaws, whether linked to app-based aggregators like Ola, Uber and Rapido or operating privately. “Only duly registered and verified persons shall be permitted to operate such vehicles,” it directed. It further directed that all such vehicles must display the names and photographs of the verified drivers and assistants, in a manner as visible to the passenger, and the Road Transport Officer of the concerned jurisdiction to be responsible for ensuring this.

A dedicated avenue for registering complaints to be provided, especially for government buses, private buses, cabs, taxis, rickshaws not registered with app-based services. Uniforms or other visible identification must be prescribed and where already prescribed, to be worn every day.

Any substitution or sub-letting to be subjected to prior registration and verification, and unauthorised sub-letting to an unverified driver must be prohibited. Vehicle checkpoints to be utilised for verification, including through periodic and surprise checks.

The authorities are directed to examine the implementation of the directions in S Rajaseekaran v Union of India & Ors, on Vehicle Tracking System Devices, and to evaluate how such monitoring is integrated with the police emergency response system, with periodic and surprise checks.

Referring to activation of SOS mechanisms, the bench observed that “unless one is adequately informed of what assistant will follow upon pressing such SOS button, there may be hesitation in using it.” Therefore, the authorities must place on record the existing SOS response protocol, the responsible personnel or unit, the turnaround time, if any, and the mechanism for monitoring compliance.

The bench also directed to identify and remove trucks, heavy vehicles and other vehicles habitually parked unlawfully where they obstruct visibility, create blind spots or harbour unauthorised personnel.

With regards to liquor shops, it directed to identify and deal with unauthorised liquor shops and establishments, with particular attention to eateries supplying liquor unlawfully. Beat officers are also directed to ensure that loitering or crowding around liquor shops is dispersed promptly.

Citizen Participation And Training:

Further, the Court also said that the police and local administration shall consider instituting regular citizen-engagement meetings under the supervision of a designated officer, so that grievances may be received directly and their follow-up monitored. It stressed that citizens must be assured that information will be “received sensitively, acted upon promptly, and where appropriate, kept confidential.” It particularly mentioned areas in and around educational institutions and paying-guest accommodations housing young women and girls.

It further directed that joint patrolling in vulnerable areas be strengthened and that senior officers hold regular meetings with beat patrol officers. The protocols on beat patrolling, including the deployment and halting of PCR vans, are to be reviewed. The Court also said training in preventive policing should form part of the induction of police personnel, reinforced through periodic training.

Reports Sought:

A joint report is sought from the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Secretary on whether dedicated control-room command centres exist in Delhi, their number and coverage, and the protocols for real-time coordination and emergency deployment.

The Commissioner of Police is directed to place on record copies of the weekly reports submitted over the preceding three months, along with a consolidated analysis, as the bench wants to ascertain “not merely whether the Shishtachar Squads exist administratively,” but the extent to which they have been operational and the follow-up action taken.

With regards to Operation Nirbheek and Nazuk Scheme, the bench sought a detailed status report on the mechanisms for the safety and protection of complainants, the safeguarding of their identity and confidentiality, and measures to prevent retaliation, intimidation, harassment or any other form of backlash.

It has also sought a report on police staffing, addressing the CAG's observations, and a report on the feasibility of the Mathew's QR code model.

Last month, the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court was asked to file an affidavit on the Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) and POCSO Special Courts in Delhi, stating the number of functional courts, the cases pending before each, annual disposal rates for the preceding three years, and the average time taken for final disposal. The Registrar General is directed to file the report, on or before 06.11.2026.

Significantly, the bench has directed that the information must be compiled in affidavits to be filed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

“If at any stage, we find that our directions are not being complied with, implemented or accorded the seriousness which is warranted, these two officers shall be made personally answerable,” the bench stated.

The matter is next listed on November 16, 2026. Further, the Court also directed the officials present before the bench to remain present on the next date also.

Appearance: Ms Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv. as Amicus Curiae; Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Ms Archana Pathak, Additional Solicitor General