New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in its suo motu case over recent incidents of rape in Delhi-NCR, has issued six immediate directives to be executed by the Delhi Police, local administration, and the Transport department.
First, immediate intensification of beat patrols across the Capital, “more particularly around educational institutions (including schools, colleges, universities and coaching institutions)” and zones flagged under vulnerability mapping.
Second, mandatory driver and assistant verification for government/private buses, app-based aggregators like Ola, Uber, Rapido; and private cabs/taxis/rickshaws. Vehicles must now visibly display the names and photographs of verified drivers and assistants to passengers. Unauthorised sub-letting or substitution is strictly prohibited, with non-compliance inviting immediate suspension/dismissal and vehicle seizure, the Court has ordered.
Third is the evaluation and integration of Vehicle Tracking System Devices (pursuant to S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2012) with the police emergency response system, backed by periodic surprise checks.
Next, the Supreme Court has ordered public awareness drives regarding SOS button activation, response protocols, and designated turnaround times to eliminate passenger hesitation in distress situations.
Further, the Court has ordered identification and prompt removal of trucks and heavy vehicles habitually parked unlawfully that create blind spots or obstruct visibility.
Lastly, the Supreme Court has ordered identification and legal action against unauthorised liquor shops or eateries illegally serving alcohol, along with the prompt dispersal of loitering or assemblies around liquor outlets by beat officers.
The directions were issued by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran in the second hearing of the Court-initiated proceedings relating to emergency response infrastructure and public safety of women in Delhi.
Also Read: India’s outrage over rape now comes with an ‘ideal victim’ checklist
Fixing accountability
The bench on 28 September, while taking suo motu cognisance of the recent rape incidents in Delhi, had drawn a parallel between the 2012 Nirbhaya gangrape case and the recent alleged gangrape of two minors—one at Delhi’s Aastha Kunj park and another inside a moving bus.
The Court had issued four women’s safety directives then.
While this hearing happened on 5 October, the Court in the formal order published Thursday has emphasised that its principal objective is two-fold: “One, to ensure that the deficiencies in the existing mechanisms for crime prevention and emergency response are identified and addressed immediately, and two, to ask the respondents to identify and address any vacuum/gap in policy and/or their implementation thereof”.
Cautioning against executive overreach, the Bench stressed that “the pursuit of preventive policing cannot become a justification for arbitrary or excessive or disproportionate exercise of police powers,” ruling that police intervention must remain strictly within legal bounds.
To ensure strict adherence, the Supreme Court designated the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, as the sole deponents responsible for filing compliance affidavits.
Issuing an explicit warning, the Court has stated that if at any stage, it finds that its directions are not being complied with, implemented or accorded the seriousness which is warranted, “these two officers shall be made personally answerable”.
‘Broken windows’ theory & shift to preventive policing
Invoking the ‘Broken Windows’ theory propounded by Prof. James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, the Supreme Court noted that unattended civic neglect directly breeds criminal activity. The Bench observed that the theory proceeds on the premise that “visible and unattended signs of disorder or civic neglect may signal that an area is inadequately monitored or that deviant behaviour may go unchecked”.
Applying this concept to public safety in Delhi, the Court held: “Applied to the present context, 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.”
Underlining the necessity of proactive state action, the Supreme Court stated that “public safety, therefore, cannot be viewed solely through the prism of a response to a crime after it has occurred,” adding that intervention must happen at the stage where signs of neglect or vulnerability first emerge.
Command centres & ‘war rooms’ for real-time surveillance
Highlighting the critical role of technology and quick response mechanisms, the Supreme Court directed the establishing and auditing of central command infrastructure. The Court observed that crime prevention requires constant surveillance and underscored “the importance of effective real-time monitoring of police patrolling and CCTV infrastructure, through dedicated control-room command centres or ‘war rooms’.”
To enforce this, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, have been directed to furnish a joint report detailing whether dedicated control-room command centres of this nature currently exist within NCT of Delhi, their exact numbers, and coverage areas. The exact protocols in place for real-time coordination, communication, and emergency field deployment once information is received by command centres have also been asked for.
Addressing existing administrative orders of 2024 and 2025 establishing anti-eve teasing ‘Shishtachar Squads’, the Court remarked that protocols on paper are useless without ground execution.
“Ultimately, the efficacy of a preventive policing framework must be judged not by the number of Standing Orders issued, but by the extent to which those orders translate into visible police presence, timely intervention, deterrence and a demonstrable sense of safety amongst citizens”, the 25-page order read.
Consequently, the Court ordered the Delhi Police Commissioner to submit weekly reports from the past three months regarding the operational drives, locations, and actions taken by Shishtachar Squads. It has also sought a detailed status report on Operation ‘Nirbheek’ and the ‘Nazuk’ scheme, focusing on victim identity protection, confidentiality, and anti-retaliation mechanisms for female student complainants.
A comprehensive review by the Research and Development Branch of Delhi Police regarding the adequacy of preventive policing training modules has also been sought by the Court.
All consolidated status reports and affidavits must be filed on or before 6 November.
On 16 November, the next date of hearing, the Joint Commissioners of Police, who were present for the 5 October hearing, have been asked to remain present in person.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Women petitioned courts for justice against rapists 800 yrs ago. Things haven’t changed much