In its suo motu case on recent sexual offences in Delhi-NCR, the Supreme Court has directed Delhi authorities to complete, within four weeks, a police survey of vulnerable locations and an audit of lighting and CCTV, called for detailed status reports on women’s safety mechanisms, and sought an affidavit from the Delhi High Court on the working of fast track and POCSO courts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a detailed order in its suo motu case on recent sexual offences in Delhi-NCR, directing the Delhi Police and civic authorities to complete a survey of vulnerable locations, a lighting and CCTV audit and stepped-up patrolling within four weeks, calling for comprehensive status reports on existing safety mechanisms, and appointing Senior Advocate Liz Mathew as amicus curiae [In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 6 of 2026 on September 28, 2026, and listed the matter for further directions and compliance on October 5, 2026. The Court made it clear that the proceedings do not assess the guilt of any individual accused, which can be decided only through due process and a fair trial, and are confined to institutional failures and preventive systems. The victims are not named in this report.
The incidents the Court noted
The Court referred to recent news reports of the alleged gang rape of a 17-year-old at a public park in Delhi, which it said also brought to light earlier complaints of recurrent sexual harassment by students of a women’s college near the park that had not led to better patrolling or vigilance. It also noted the alleged gang rape and murder of a teenage girl in a Delhi locality, and the alleged sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus that police did not intercept over a distance of more than 47 km from Greater Noida to Delhi, drawing a comparison with the 2012 Nirbhaya case. These incidents remain allegations under investigation.
The Court said the incidents pointed to a systemic failure of law enforcement and civil administration. It held that the right to live with dignity, free from fear of violence, is part of Article 21, and that public spaces, including parks, roads, buses, metro stations, subways and foot bridges, cannot become zones of high risk because of inadequate illumination, poor surveillance or lax patrolling.
Expressing solidarity is not the solution to this social evil. What is required is a measurable response, with responsibility and accountability fixed upon the authorities entrusted with prevention of crime, maintenance of public order and protection of vulnerable persons.
Status reports sought
The Court said it wants to know not only what measures have been announced but how far they are operating on the ground, and asked the authorities to file a comprehensive status report. It asked what safety arrangements exist in parks, roads, public transport, markets and educational institutions, and whether they work equally well at peak hours, late evening and early morning. It also asked how the Delhi Police use the National Database on Sexual Offenders, including the number of times it was used in investigations in Delhi in the past five years, and how the Ministry of Home Affairs uses the Investigation Tracking System for Sexual Offences to monitor time-bound investigations, including who reviews cases and what happens when timelines are missed.
The report must also cover how the Mission Shakti programme works in Delhi, and the present status and actual functioning in Delhi of the mechanisms mentioned in the Ministry of Women and Child Development’s June 2024 report on the Beijing Declaration: the emergency number 112, the Women Helpline 181, the Safe City Project (including CCTV coverage, smart lighting and the number of vulnerable locations covered), Women Help Desks in police stations, and One Stop Centres. The Court asked whether these services are being publicised, and said the administration and police should frame schemes to inform schools, colleges, educational institutions and residential colonies about them.
For each mechanism, the authorities must say whether it is operational, the area and population covered, the responsible officer, the volume of complaints, calls or interventions handled in the past three years, and the average response time where it can be measured. The Court stressed that the exercise is not meant to evaluate schemes on paper, and that a mechanism serves its purpose only if it is accessible, functional, adequately staffed and prompt.
Interim measures within four weeks
Pending the status reports, the Court directed the following interim measures to be taken within four weeks:
The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, is to constitute dedicated teams for each police district, headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to survey and inspect vulnerable pockets such as outskirts, isolated stretches, parks, transport hubs, markets and areas around educational institutions. The audit is to draw on NCRB data, local intelligence and past and present complaints, and to identify places where poor lighting, lack of surveillance, weak patrolling, abandoned structures or poor access control raise the risk of crime. A district-wise vulnerability map is to be prepared and shared across neighbouring police stations so that patterns of crime and habitual offenders are not confined to single jurisdictions.
Appropriate patrolling and security are to be deployed at all identified parks and vulnerable areas at all times, especially in the evening and early morning, with a designated officer for each location and a system of periodic inspection. An immediate lighting and CCTV audit is to be carried out across public parks and vulnerable zones to remove blind spots, with non-functional cameras and lights repaired or restored quickly and additional ones installed where needed, and a similar audit is to be done at Metro stations, bus stops, bus terminals, railway stations and other major transport facilities, especially those in or near vulnerable zones.
The authorities are to use the existing citizen grievance mechanism, including the CM Jan Sunwai Portal, as a source of information on unsafe locations. Citizens may report poor lighting, insufficient CCTV coverage or isolated stretches, and each report is to be geo-tagged or location-specific, forwarded to the competent authority, acted upon within a prescribed time, and remain trackable by the complainant. The Commissioner of Police is to analyse these complaints periodically and feed recurring ones into the vulnerability mapping. Patrolling is also to include mobile check-posts and vehicular inspections, and the police are directed to enforce strictly the Supreme Court’s directions in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India against tinted or solar-control films on vehicle windows, impounding non-compliant vehicles, removing illegal coatings and prosecuting offenders.
Fast track and POCSO courts
The Court directed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to file an affidavit within four weeks on the present status and functioning of the Fast Track Special Courts and Exclusive POCSO Courts in Delhi. It asked for the number of functional courts, the number of cases pending before each, the annual disposal rates for the previous three years, and the average time taken for final disposal. The Delhi High Court, on its administrative side, is directed to assign the cases arising from the incidents to a designated Fast Track Special Court and to ensure that trials are concluded expeditiously, preferably within one year of the start of trial.
Media reporting
The Court observed that media reporting on sexual offences carries a constitutional and ethical duty, and that sensationalist headlines and graphic or lurid descriptions serve no public interest and risk secondary trauma to victims and their families. It reminded print, electronic and digital media of the ban on disclosing, directly or indirectly, the identity of a victim of sexual assault or of a minor child, under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 23 of the POCSO Act. It also asked the district administration to meet media houses at once about a dedicated newspaper column and broadcast time, on a pro bono basis, giving the protective mechanisms and telephone numbers people can use in an emergency.
Notice and amicus
The Court issued notice to the Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, and appointed Senior Advocate Liz Mathew as amicus curiae, directing that she be given a copy of the order and the newspaper cuttings. The case will next be heard on October 5, 2026.
Why it matters
The order moves the suo motu case from a general expression of concern to time-bound, measurable steps, and names the officers and bodies who must carry them out. The demand for figures on call volumes, response times and functioning equipment goes beyond asking authorities to describe their schemes. The case will now turn on the status reports and on what the authorities show by the next hearing.
The directions are interim and are addressed to the authorities. The Court has not assessed the guilt of any accused person, and the individual cases will continue to be governed by their own investigations and trials.
Case Title: In Re: Recent Rape Incidents in Delhi NCR [Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 6 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Liz Mathew.
If a woman or child needs help: emergency 112, Women Helpline 181, CHILDLINE 1098.