After recent sexual assaults, Supreme Court orders Delhi-NCR safety audits, intensified patrols and review of women’s protection systems

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of recent media reports concerning alleged sexual offences against women and minors across Delhi-NCR, including incidents in Aastha Kunj Park, Swaroop Nagar and a moving sleeper bus.

The reports also highlighted earlier complaints of sexual harassment near Lady Shri Ram College for Women and raised concerns about public-space safety and law-enforcement response.

The Court framed the proceedings as an inquiry into systemic and institutional safeguards, not the criminal culpability of individual accused persons.

It called for status reports on existing safety mechanisms and directed immediate interim measures.

1. Whether the existing preventive, monitoring and response systems are operational and effective in ensuring the safety of public spaces across Delhi-NCR.

2. Whether the authorities’ use and implementation of specified databases, programmes, helplines, infrastructure and support services are adequate and accountable.

3. Whether immediate measures were required to identify and address vulnerabilities in public spaces and expedite trials before the relevant special courts.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty, including the right to live with dignity and without fear of violence; the State and its instrumentalities must maintain safe, accessible and secure public spaces, with particular attention to the heightened risks faced by children, women and sexual minorities.

The Court referred to Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 23 of the POCSO Act, which prohibit disclosure of the identity of victims of sexual offences and minor children.

It also invoked Avishek Goenka v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2011, concerning the prohibition on aftermarket black, tinted or solar-control vehicle window films.

Individual criminal liability must be determined through investigation and fair trial, rather than in these systemic proceedings.

The reported incidents, considered alongside prior complaints and alleged gaps in policing and public infrastructure, raised concerns extending beyond any individual criminal case.

The Court treated safety as a State obligation under Article 21 and concluded that announced schemes or infrastructure were insufficient without evidence of actual operation, accessibility, staffing, response times and oversight.

It therefore required detailed reporting on relevant systems and directed audits, vulnerability mapping, targeted patrolling, repairs to lighting and CCTV, and a mechanism to track and incorporate citizen complaints.

It separately addressed trial delays by requiring information about special courts and directing assignment of the identified cases for expeditious trial.

It directed the concerned Delhi authorities to submit comprehensive status reports and implement specified interim safety measures within four weeks; directed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to report on Fast Track Special Courts and Exclusive POCSO Courts; and directed that the identified cases be assigned to a designated Fast Track Special Court, with trials to conclude expeditiously, preferably within one year of commencement.

The Court also issued notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, and appointed Ms. Liz Mathew, Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

The matter was listed for further hearing on 5 October 2026.