Another rape, another suo motu cognizance, but what happens after?

Recently, the Supreme Court, in a suo motu writ petition In Re: Recent rape incidents in Delhi NCR gave directions on institutional reforms for improving women’s safety in the Delhi-NCR region. The Court’s intervention comes in the aftermath of the alleged gang-rape of a 17-year old minor in Delhi’s Aastha Kunj Park.

This is not the first instance the Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a matter concerning women’s safety against sexual violence. In 2024, the Court did the same in the RG Kar case and gave directions for the creation of safer working conditions for medical professionals.

While such initiatives from the Court are admirable, a harder question to answer is: what happens after such directions are issued? The Court’s directions, without any corresponding enforcement mechanism, fail to achieve the aim that they are issued with.

The suo motu cognizance addresses institutional failure as a common denominator in such instances of crimes against women. Pointing to the same, the Court also commented on how solidarity shown by the authorities is not the answer to this “social evil”. The Court’s order accounts for existing preventive measures like the National Database on Sexual Offenders, the Safe City Project and One Stop Centres. It tries to assess their demonstrated efficacy in fulfilling their purpose. In its subsequent order on October 5, the Court also directed the Delhi Police to set up real-time monitoring cells in addition to CCTV surveillance in public spaces.

The two orders by the Court demonstrate a vigorous attack on institutional failure. However, this vigour is bound to fizzle down without attached subsequent action, which is what happened in the 2024 case.

In August 2024, the Court took suo motu cognizance in the case of the rape and murder of a trainee doctor in RG Kar Medical College and proposed the constitution of a National Task Force (NTF). The NTF was tasked with formulating recommendations for enhanced safety and better working conditions for medical professionals. In November 2024, the NTF submitted its recommendations for better working conditions and prevention of violence (including sexual violence) against medical professionals. In December 2025, this suo motu petition was closed by the Supreme Court and the matter was transferred back to the Calcutta High Court. Post this transfer, the High Court has not made any orders in relation to the NTF and its recommendations.

The execution of Court orders might not always be the correct marker for judging the success or failure of a judgment. Nor can the entire burden of fixing institutional gaps be placed on the Court alone. However, the subsequent inaction by the High Court highlights how once the issues are identified, a solution is made available but not seen to the end. Any directions for relief or action cannot be effective without attached consequences for inaction or laxity.

The Aastha Kunj case, as Justice Pardiwala writes, draws “painful parallels” to the 2012 Nirbhaya case. However, not much has changed statistically for women since then. Justice Banumathi’s concurring opinion in the 2017 appeal in the Nirbhaya case discusses how the NCRB’s Crime in India Report, 2015 showed that in 2015, a total of 3,27,394 cases of crimes against women were reported, displaying an increase of over 43% as compared to the 2011 figure of 2,28,650 cases. 

Over a decade after her opinion, not much seems to have changed on ground. The Crime in India Report of 2024 shows that this figure stood at 4,41,534 in 2024, marking a 34.86% increase in crimes against women from 2015. Per the 2024 data in the report, while the total number of reported crimes against women in Union Territories was 17,775, 13,396 were reported in Delhi. An important caveat here is that the NCRB’s reports account for only reported instances; the real figure may be much higher.

The rising numbers of reported crimes against women demonstrate the pressing need for institutional reform, which is also identified by the Supreme Court. The concentration of the maximum number of these crimes being reported in Delhi makes the recent order by the Supreme Court a necessary initiative to resolve systemic failure. However, the resolution cannot happen if there is no monitored, ground-level implementation measure undertaken.

A possible alternative can be coupling such directions with measures like continuing mandamus. Continuing mandamus combines the power of the judicial bodies to direct a public authority’s performance of its duty with a periodic review of such performance, to ensure effective provision of justice beyond focused reflection. In 2019, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the alarming rise incidents of minors’ rapes. This matter was later clubbed with the Unnao rape case and the Court periodically reviewed the progress in investigation, only closing the matter in 2025 post conviction of the accused. Such a sustained approach is also needed in these suo motu matters, if actual institutional change is to occur.

The Supreme Court’s intervention lays the groundwork to ensure a safer society for women, but true impact remains elusive without corresponding execution.The two orders from August 2024 and September 2026 highlight judicial intent to overcome institutional shortcomings and to strive for attaining justice beyond a single case. However, intent alone is not enough. The issuing of directions without corresponding measures for effective enforcement can render the broader relief sought to be granted by the court nugatory. The aftermath of these directions, thus, becomes important.

Mansi Tiwari is a Research Fellow at the Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy.

The views expressed are personal.