The Supreme Court has issued a series of directions to strengthen preventive policing and emergency response mechanisms across Delhi while hearing its suo motu proceedings concerning recent rape incidents in Delhi-NCR.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran emphasised that public safety cannot be viewed merely as a response to crime after it occurs, and directed authorities to identify and address vulnerabilities in public spaces before they facilitate criminal activity.
The Court directed enhanced beat patrolling across the NCT of Delhi, particularly around schools, colleges, universities, coaching institutions and other areas identified through vulnerability mapping. Joint patrolling in vulnerable areas is also to be strengthened, with senior police officers required to regularly review local vulnerabilities and the effectiveness of patrolling arrangements.
The Court further ordered strict verification of drivers and assistants engaged in government and private buses, cabs, taxis, auto-rickshaws and vehicles linked to app-based aggregators such as Ola, Uber and Rapido. Only registered and verified persons will be permitted to operate such vehicles, with their names and photographs to be displayed visibly for passengers. Unauthorised substitution or sub-letting to unverified drivers has also been prohibited.
Authorities have been directed to ensure effective implementation of Vehicle Tracking System devices and examine their integration with the police emergency-response system. Periodic and surprise checks are to be conducted to ensure that the systems remain functional.
On SOS mechanisms, the Court directed authorities to educate passengers about their activation, the response protocol and expected response time. The authorities must also place on record details of the designated responding personnel, prescribed turnaround time and mechanism for monitoring compliance.
The Court also directed authorities to identify and remove trucks, heavy vehicles and other vehicles that obstruct visibility, create blind spots or provide cover for unauthorised persons. Unauthorised liquor shops and establishments are also to be identified and dealt with in accordance with law.
Emphasising real-time policing, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Chief Secretary, GNCTD to report on the existence and functioning of dedicated control-room command centres or “war rooms” for monitoring police patrolling and CCTV infrastructure, as well as protocols for real-time coordination and emergency deployment.
The Court further called for greater citizen participation in public safety, directing police and local administration to consider regular citizen-engagement meetings through designated officers. Complaints concerning unsafe public spaces, including poor lighting and other safety deficiencies, should be received sensitively and acted upon promptly.
On Shishtachar Squads, the Court directed the Delhi Police to place on record weekly reports for the preceding three months, along with a consolidated assessment of the squads’ functioning, including areas covered, frequency and timing of drives, action taken and follow-up.
The Commissioner of Police was also directed to submit a detailed status report on Operation “Nirbheek” and the “Nazuk” Scheme, including measures for protecting complainants, safeguarding their identity and confidentiality, and preventing retaliation, intimidation or harassment following complaints.
The Court stressed that preventive policing must become an institutional practice, with preventive-policing training forming part of police induction and being reinforced periodically. It also directed an assessment of the specialised training module for Shishtachar Squads.
Importantly, the Court observed that the directions are not intended merely to create additional protocols, noting that Delhi Police already has Standing Orders and Circulars addressing several of these safeguards. The focus, it said, must be on whether these measures translate into “sustained, visible and verifiable action on the ground.”
The Court also cautioned that preventive policing cannot justify arbitrary, excessive or disproportionate exercise of police powers, stressing the requirements of legality, proportionality and accountability.
The authorities have been directed to file a consolidated status report within four weeks and, in any event, by November 6, 2026, detailing compliance with the Court’s earlier and present directions. The reports must identify measures implemented, those pending and the reasons for pendency.
The Court has also sought a report on the feasibility of a QR-code-based model for monitoring police patrolling, including time-stamping and geo-mapping/geo-fencing.
The matter has been treated as part-heard and listed for November 16, 2026. Notice has also been issued to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Transport Department, GNCTD.
