‘Painful Parallel To Nirbhaya’: SC Steps In Over Minor’s Gang-Rape On Moving Bus In Delhi-NCR

The Supreme Court on Monday took suo motu cognisance of a series of recent sexual-assault cases in Delhi-NCR, including the alleged gang-rape of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus, and questioned whether the lessons of the 2012 Nirbhaya case had truly been learnt.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the incidents “starkly underline a systematic failure” by law-enforcement and public administrative authorities to guarantee basic public safety. Referring to the bus case, the court said, “One cannot help but draw painful parallels to the Nirbhaya incident of 2012,” while questioning whether law-enforcement mechanisms had made meaningful progress since then.

The court stressed that the right to live with dignity and without fear of violence is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. It said public spaces, including parks, roads, buses, Metro stations, subways and footbridges, cannot become “zones of high risk” because of poor lighting, inadequate surveillance, lack of patrolling or other preventable administrative failures.

The moving-bus case dates to August 4, when a minor girl allegedly boarded a sleeper bus in Greater Noida and was allegedly assaulted by its driver and conductor before being abandoned near Kashmere Gate in Delhi. The bus travelled around 47 km, with reports subsequently flagging a non-functional CCTV system, heavy curtains restricting visibility and multiple traffic challans. The two accused were arrested.

The NHRC had already taken suo motu cognisance of the case and sought reports from police authorities. Meanwhile, Delhi's State Transport Authority reiterated bus-safety requirements, including functional tracking devices and panic buttons, adequate interior lighting and a ban on curtains and window films. Notably, these requirements were already part of Delhi's bus permit conditions dating back to 2013, raising questions about enforcement rather than merely the absence of rules.

That is where the Supreme Court's intervention assumes a larger significance. The bench said “expressing solidarity is not a solution” and called for a measurable response with responsibility and accountability fixed on authorities entrusted with preventing crime and protecting vulnerable people.