The Centre's reply on women's safety in Delhi-NCR must be a working model, not a tidier draft

On Friday the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the Centre’s draft affidavits on women’s safety in Delhi-NCR were ready, and that he was not satisfied with them. The court gave him until November 23 to do better. “We want something that can be replicated in the rest of the country,” Tushar Mehta said. Justice JB Pardiwala answered in kind: “If the Solicitor General is not satisfied with the reply they have prepared, the whole exercise will be futile.”

Both are right, and the exchange sets a better standard than most government replies are held to. The question now is what meeting that standard looks like.

What the court is asking about

The court took up the matter on its own on September 28, after reports of an alleged gang rape at a park in Aastha Kunj and an alleged sexual assault on a minor girl in a moving sleeper bus. It said public spaces should not become high-risk zones through poor lighting, weak surveillance and lax patrolling. On October 5 it told Delhi Police to step up beat patrols and to let only registered, verified drivers run buses, cabs, taxis and auto-rickshaws, including those booked through apps.

These are practical failures. None needs a new law. Each needs someone to be responsible for fixing it, by a date, in a way a citizen can check.

The fair objection

Delhi-NCR is not one government. Delhi Police reports to the Centre, but street lights, parks and bus stops belong to municipal bodies, the Delhi government and the state governments of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. A central affidavit cannot promise what the Centre does not control, and a reply that promises everything will be worth nothing.

That is the case for a model rather than a list of assurances. A model can say who owns each task and what happens when the owner does not deliver.

What a replicable reply contains

First, a map of who is answerable for what: the agency for every street light, patrol beat, park, bus stand and bus route, so that a complaint never ends with “not our jurisdiction”.

Second, a published register of dark and unsafe spots, ward by ward, with a repair date next to each entry and a public tick when it is done. The same register should cover crowded stops and parks, not only roads.

Third, a verified-driver record that a passenger can check before a ride starts, covering app-booked and street-hailed vehicles alike, with a penalty for platforms that allow unverified drivers.

Fourth, a response-time standard for complaints and emergency calls, with the figures published every month so that the court and the public can see whether patrols and help reach the place in time.

Fifth, a clear line of accountability for failure. When a spot flagged as unsafe is not fixed and something happens there, the officer who held the file should be named in the next report.

None of this is expensive next to the cost of another night like the ones that brought the court in. All of it can be written down and copied by a city that has never heard of Aastha Kunj.

What the court can do next

Senior Advocate Liz Mathew, the amicus curiae, has asked for a week after the reply is filed. The case is listed on December 2. The court could use that date to ask a simple question of every agency in the region: what was fixed since September 28, and where is the proof. A reply that can answer that is a model. One that cannot is only a draft with a better cover.

The reporting behind this view

• November 23new deadline for the Centre's reply, extended from November 6 (Supreme Court, November 6, 2026)
• October 5date of the court's directions on beat patrols and verified drivers
• December 2next hearing, after the amicus has a week with the reply