The recent directions of the Supreme Court (SC) on the safety of women and children in Delhi-NCR deserve to be seen not merely as another set of judicial orders, but as an opportunity to examine how preventive policing can work more effectively on the ground.
The court has called for vulnerability mapping, strengthened patrolling, designated responsibility for vulnerable locations, and audits of lighting and CCTV in parks and other public spaces. It has also emphasised measurable action, with responsibility and accountability fixed on those entrusted with prevention of crime and the protection of vulnerable persons. Delhi Police leadership must begin not with a request for more personnel, but with an assessment of where the officers already available are deployed. These are the ranks most directly connected with field policing. But there is also a deployment question. Every territorial police station could immediately undergo a manpower and deployment audit. It also found instances where personnel were deployed at district or sub-divisional headquarters while police stations remained short-staffed. The court has directed district-wise vulnerability mapping using crime patterns, complaints, local intelligence and other relevant information. Identified parks and vulnerable areas are to receive appropriate patrolling and security arrangements, particularly during periods identified through vulnerability assessments, with designated responsibility for identified locations. Delhi’s residents deserve visible, responsive policing, not paper assurances. With the Supreme Court’s mandate, Delhi must build a lasting preventive system. Citizens shouldn’t ask where police are—authorities should already know where citizens are vulnerable and who is responsible for fixing it.
As of March 12, 2026, the Delhi Police had 97,331 sanctioned posts and 14,140 vacancies, including 13,958 vacancies from the constable to inspector level. A CAG audit had earlier found a 35% manpower shortage in the 72 police stations examined, with a greater shortfall in active duties than static duties. There is therefore a genuine vacancy problem.
There should also be an antecedent and bail-status review where the arrested suspect has previous criminal cases or is already on bail. Where legally sustainable grounds exist, the prosecution should seek cancellation of bail. Where bond-forfeiture requirements are met, the applicable provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita should be invoked through the court.
The investigating officer should verify the cases and bail conditions and place the information before the prosecution and appropriate court.
