state of policing and law & order in delhi february 2019 · state of policing and law &...

1 State of Policing and Law & Order in Delhi

WHITE PAPER

And

IC Centre for Governance

STATE OF POLICING AND LAW & ORDER IN DELHI

February 2019


Table of Contents

I. Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 4

II. Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 5

III. Crime in India: Why the delay? .................................................................................................... 7

IV. Summary of Delhi Crime Statistics ............................................................................................... 8

Section A. Crime Statistics .................................................................................................................. 8

Table 1 : Reporting of Crime in Delhi from FY 2014-15 to FY 2017-18 ................................................... 8

Table 2 : Highest Crimes Reported District-wise in Delhi from FY 2014-15 to FY 2017-18. ..................... 9

Figure 1 : Kidnapping and Abduction of Women in Delhi from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18. ................... 10

Table 3: Cases registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act from FY

2015-16 to FY 2017-18. ..................................................................................................................... 11

Table 4 : Number of Road Accidents, Persons Injured and Died from 2013 to 2017 ............................ 12

Section B. Status on Police Reforms .................................................................................................. 13

V. Police Personnel ....................................................................................................................... 14

Table 5: Designation wise number of police personnel difference between working forces from FY

2016-17 to FY 2017-18. ..................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6 : Police Personnel details based on Areas of Delhi (165 Police Stations) as of 31st March 2018 15

Table 7 : Police Personnel details based on Department as of 31st March 2018 .................................. 16

Table 8 : Police Personnel details based on Supervisory level officer (as of 31st Mar 2018) ................ 17

VI. Deliberations by Members of Parliament (MP) in Delhi............................................................. 18

Table 9: Number of questions asked on crime issues from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018 ..................... 18

Table 10: Issues-wise number of questions asked on crime from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018 ........... 19

VII. Citizen Survey Data .................................................................................................................. 20

Section I. Perception of Safety in Delhi ............................................................................................ 20

Table 11: Percentage of people who feel unsafe in Delhi ................................................................... 20

Table 12: Percentage of people who feel unsafe in Delhi of different socio-economic classes ............. 21

Table 13: Percentage of people of different genders who feel unsafe in Delhi .................................... 21

Section II. A) Survey Statistics for Respondents who have witnessed crime ........................................ 22

Table 14: Respondents who witnessed crime and have informed police and their satisfaction level in

Delhi ................................................................................................................................................ 22

Table 15: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed crime in Delhi ................ 23

Table 16: Reason for not informing Police by respondents who have witnessed crime in Delhi........... 24


Section II. B) Survey Statistics for Respondents who have faced crime .............................................. 25

Table 17: Respondents who faced crime and have informed police and their satisfaction level in

Delhi ................................................................................................................................................ 25

Table 18: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have faced crime in Delhi ....................... 26

Table 19: Reason for not informing police by respondents who have faced crime .............................. 27

Table 20: Respondents who witnessed crime or faced crime who have informed police and their

satisfaction level (SEC Wise) ............................................................................................................. 27

Table 21: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed or faced crime (SEC

Wise) ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 22: Reason for not informing police of different socio-economic classes. .................................. 28

Section III. Survey Statistics as per Gender ........................................................................................ 29

Table 23: Respondents who witnessed crime or faced crime who have informed police and their

satisfaction ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 24: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed or faced crime ............... 29

Table 25: Reason for not informing the police among respondents who have witnessed crime or faced

crime ............................................................................................................................................... 30

Annexure 1: MP (Members of Parliament) Region-wise crime reported from FY 2014-15 to FY2017-18 ..... 31

Annexure 2 – Sources of Data ........................................................................................................... 32

Annexure 3 – Survey Methodology ................................................................................................... 33

Annexure 4 – Socio Economic Classification (SEC) Note ..................................................................... 34

Annexure 5: Message published by NCRB (National Crime Record Bureau) on Crime in India 2016. .... 35


I. Acknowledgements Praja has obtained the data used in compiling this white paper through Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence it is very important to acknowledge the RTI Act and everyone involved, especially the officials who have provided us this information diligently.

We are also most grateful to – our Elected Representatives, the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and journalists who utilise and publicise our data and, by doing so, ensure that awareness regarding various issues we discuss is distributed to a wide ranging population. We would also like to extend our gratitude to all government officials for their cooperation and support

This White Paper has been made possible by the support provided to us by our supporters and we would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to them. First and foremost, we would like to thank The Initiatives of Change (IC) Centre for Governance (ICCG), a prominent organisation working on improving governance structures and United Residents Joint Action (URJA), a well-known organisation which addresses the gap in last mile governance by connecting citizens and RWA. Our work in Delhi has been conducted in partnership with them and we have been able to conduct data driven research on vital issues affecting the governance of Delhi on aspects such as performance of Elected Representatives (ER), Health, Education, Crime and Policing and Civic issues.

Praja Foundation appreciates the support given by our supporters and donors, namely European Union Fund, Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Ford Foundation, Dasra, Narotam Sekhsaria Foundation, A.T.E. Chandra Foundation and Madhu Mehta Foundation and numerous other individual supporters. Their support has made it possible for us to conduct our study & publish this white paper.

We would like to thank Hansa Cequity team and the team at Hansa Research for the citizen survey data.

We would also like to thank our group of Advisors & Trustees and lastly but not the least, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of all members of Praja’s team, who worked to make this white paper a reality.

Note: The contents of this publication are published by Praja Foundation and in no way can be taken to reflect the views of the European Union and other donors and sponsors.


II. Foreword

Delhi has been one of the most unsafe city in India. The people living in Delhi have been increasingly

feeling unsafe. Praja’s household survey commissioned to Hansa Research states that 40% of the people

living in Delhi feel unsafe whereas 14% of people living in Mumbai feel the same.

The number of rape cases reported in Delhi is rising with 2,207 cases of rape reported in 2017-18, there

is a 3% increase from the previous year i.e. 2016-17. Out of the total number of kidnapping and abduction

cases registered in Delhi in 2017-18, 65% and 63% of the victims were women respectively.

In 2017-18, 52% of rape cases out of the total number of rape cases were registered under Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The survey data also highlights that 50% of the total

respondents in Delhi feel that the city is not secure for women, children and senior citizens. Adding to

this, no questions were raised by the Members of Parliament (MPs) on issues related to women in sessions

starting from Monsoon 2017 to Budget 2018.

In last five years from FY 2014-15 to FY 2017-18, the highest number of cases reported were that of theft

75,728 cases in 2017-18, which is an increase of 82% from the previous year i.e. 2016-17. North West

District reported the highest registration of theft (8,641) in the year 2017-18.

Our data shows that apart from increasing crimes, there is shortage of police personnel in the Delhi Police

department. As of March 2018, positions of Additional Commissioner of Police (-45%), Additional Deputy

Commissioner of Police (-43%), Assistant Commissioner of Police (-43%) and Police Sub - Inspector (-31%)

have the highest shortfall. Such a shortage in police personnel directly affects the investigation and law

and order of the city. Our household survey data also indicates the dissatisfaction level of respondents

towards the response received from the police officials on their complaints. 68% of respondents who

witnessed crime and informed police were not satisfied with response of police officials, while 67% of

those who faced crime and informed police were not satisfied with police’s response.

Moreover, the ‘Crime in India’ report by National Crime Records Bureau, which maintains and tracks the

number of pending cases, acquittals and convictions in court, is not out for this year. This makes it difficult

to monitor and track the registered cases. NCRB’s role is to generate and maintain sharable National

Databases on crimes and criminals for law enforcement agencies and uphold their use for public service

delivery. These Crime Statistics are imperative for upholding law and order in the country and form a

major tool for Police Force to prevent and detect crimes in India. But the delay in reports every year

compromises the efficient functioning of the police officials and prevention of crimes in India.

This shows that there is a need to create a strong awareness campaign against sexual abuse of the children

with all the stakeholders i.e. police, elected representatives, legal professionals, children, parents, schools

and colleges etc. It is imperative to fill up gaps in the sanctioned and available strengths of the police force

at the level of the Investigating Officers for better investigation and maintenance of law & order. Increased


involvement of the Elected Representatives by questioning the government on law & order and security

is needed. Moreover, ‘Crime in India’ report should be published on a timely basis for better monitoring,

analysis and prevention of crimes in India.

NITAI MEHTA

Managing Trustee, Praja Foundation


III. Crime in India: Why the delay? An important function of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) is to publish the Crime in India(CII) report annually. Every year, Crime in India usually gets published in July but from quite a few years, it has been delayed. The last ‘Crime in India 2016’ report came out on Nov 30, 2017 which was already 4 months delayed. ‘Crime in India 2017’ isn’t out yet. This raises questions to the NCRB on the causes of such a delay. Is NCRB in anyway lacking/lagging behind in fulfilling its roles and responsibilities every year? CII is a principal reference point for police officers, researchers, media and policy makers1 in analysing data related to crime and law and order across the country.

The cause for current delay can be attributed to the fact that the CII performae has been revised for the current year. Data for CII is collected through designed proformae covering specific crime/issue in India like Anti-Human Trafficking. The proformae for Crime in India was revised in the year 2014. Later in 2016, the ‘New’ and ‘Additional Proformae’ for 2017 were already released with Crime in India 20162. With a motive to improve the content and quality of the report, the Proformae for Crime in India 2017 went under revision again on 13th August, 2018 where various Proformae were added and modified. The New Proformae included Crimes against media persons/RTI Activists, Whistle Blowers, Persons belonging to North-East, Cyber Crimes against women and etc. While this seems like a very progressive step by NCRB to accommodate various crime statistics which will enable police to act upon such adversities against various sections of the population, due to the nature of the Proformae which are sent to each state to be filled, the delay in revision (done in August) and further lack of clarity among states on how to fill the new Proformae and raising of several queries for the same has led to an inordinate delay in the publishing of this very important statistical document.

Linking the NCRB with its major mission, such a delay would result into flawed functioning of police and law enforcement agencies in India. Two of the major objectives of NCRB are: To generate and maintain secure sharable National Databases on crimes and criminals for law execution agencies and uphold their use for public service delivery. The other is to publish information on inter-state and international criminals from and to respective States, national investigating agencies, courts and prosecutors in India without having to refer to the Police Station records3, every now and then. These Crime Statistics are imperative for upholding law and order in the country and form a major tool for Police Force to prevent and detect crimes in India. But the delay in reports every year, compromises the functioning of the police officials and prevention of crimes in India.

As much as this was a great step towards improving the quality and content of Crime in India, one needs to re-think why the implementation of new Proformaes were not done as early as possible, that even after a year of the release of Proformaes, the report isn’t out yet. Moreover, why were the Proformaes modified in August when this could have been done way before during the start of the 2018. As we don’t have Crime in India 2017 yet, it is difficult to analyse what were the highest crimes in India in 2017 and what could have been the possible interventions to prevent them in 2018. With such a long delay one needs to possibly rethink the way the planning of Crime in India is done each year. Was the NCRB prepared for the delay and consequences arising due to the same?

1 http://ncrb.gov.in/ 2 http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf 3 National Crime Records Bureau Website, Link: http://ncrb.gov.in/

http://ncrb.gov.in/

http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf

http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf

http://ncrb.gov.in/


IV. Summary of Delhi Crime Statistics

Section A. Crime Statistics

Table 1 : Reporting of Crime in Delhi from FY 2014-15 to FY 2017-18

Reported Crime 2014-15 2015-16

% Change 2014-15

to 2015-16

2016-17

% Change 2015-16

to 2016-17

2017-18

% Change 2016-17 to 2017-

18

Murder (Sec.302) 540 628 16% 551 -12% 535 -3%

Att. to Murder (Sec.307) 772 798 3% 653 -18% 633 -3%

Rape (Sec.376) 2,088 2,318 11% 2,153 -7% 2,207 3%

Molestation of Women (Sec.354,354A,B,C,D)

4,422 4,107 -7% 3,760 -8% 3,367 -10%

Riots (Sec.147-151,153A) 160 166 4% 84 -49% 39 -54%

Kidnapping / Abduction (Sec.363-369,364A)

7,261 7,727 6% 6,697 -13% 6,253 -7%

Burglary (Day and Night) (Sec.454,457)

10,991 12,978 18% 8,810 -32% 6,149 -30%

Chain Snatching (Sec.356) 5,933 4,423 -25% 5,134 16% 2,727 -47%

Robbery / Dacoity (Sec.392-395,397,398)

7,018 8,308 18% 4,334 -48% 3,059 -29%

Accident / Fatal Accident (Sec. 279 with 337,338 or 304A)

8,084 8,474 5% 7,481 -12% 7,056 -6%

Theft (Sec.379) 52,211 53,525 3% 41,617 -22% 75,728 82%

Extortion (Sec.384-389) 242 264 9% 209 -21% 155 -26%

Inference:

The highest number of cases registered is of theft, with 75,728 cases in 2017-18, which is an

increase of 82% from the previous year i.e. 2016-17.

Incidences of rape continue to be high in Delhi, with 2,207 cases of rape reported in 2017-18, a

3% increase from the previous year i.e. 2016-17.

There has been a continuous decreasing trend for crimes registered under Riots (-54%),

Kidnapping/Abduction (-7%), Burglary (-30%), Chain Snatching (-47%), and Robbery / Dacoity (-

29%) from 2016-17 to 2017-18.


Table 2 : Highest Crimes Reported District-wise in Delhi from FY 2014-15 to FY 2017-18.

Crime

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

District Reporte

d District

Reported

District Reporte

d District

Reported

Murder Outer 87 Outer 127 Outer 109 Outer 108

Attempt to murder

North East

118 North East

143 North East 119 Outer 108

Rape South 296 North East

356 Outer 362 Outer 308

Molestation

South 778 North East

643 Outer 561 Outer 382

Riots North East

37 North East

54 Outer 15 North East 9

Kidnapping/ Abduction

Outer 1,219 North East

1,258 Outer 1,145 Outer 1,023

Burglary (Day and Night)

Outer 1,896 Outer 2,448 Outer 1,799 Outer 1,001

Chain Snatching

West 1,078 Outer 1,643 West 1,074 West 488

Robbery / Dacoity

North East

1,412 North East

1,879 Outer 882 North East 514

Accident / Fatal Accident

Outer 1,003 North East

1,127 Outer 987 Outer 896

Theft Outer 7,565 Outer 8,617 Outer 7,212 North West

8,641

Extortion East 36 Outer 61 South West

34 Outer 20

Inference:

The highest number of cases registered in 2017-18, under Murder (108), Attempt to Murder (108), Rape (308), Molestation (382), Kidnapping/ Abduction (1,023), Burglary (1,001), Accident/ Fatal Accident (896) and Extortion (20) are from Outer District of Delhi.

Incidences of Murder, Kidnapping / Abduction, Burglary and Accident / Fatal Accident have been

the highest in Outer District since 2014-15.

North West District reported the highest registration of theft (8,641) in the year 2017-18.


Figure 1 : Kidnapping and Abduction of Women in Delhi from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18.

Inference:

In 2017-18, of the total number of kidnapping cases registered in Delhi, in 65% of the cases the

victims were women.

Out of the total Abduction cases (496) registered in Delhi for the year 2017-18, in 63% cases the

victims were women.


Table 3: Cases registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act from FY 2015-16 to FY 2017-18.

District 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Total (under POCSO)

Total Rapes

Total (under POCSO)

Total Rapes

Total (under POCSO)

Total Rapes

Central 80 118 50 108 66 114

West 129 264 96 250 86 218

East 119 246 94 229 105 224

Outer 152 328 174 362 143 308

New Delhi

9 23 11 20 7 18

North 21 48 36 69 46 66

North East

169 356 125 246 125 214

North West

101 189 101 191 117 221

South 113 300 84 236 110 203

South East

141 234 130 256 105 220

South West

100 212 90 185 105 192

Airport 0 0 0 1 0 0

Dwarka* - - - - 36 62

Rohini* - - - - 74 109

Shahdara*

- - - - 12 38

Total 1,134 2,318 991 2,153 1,137 2,207

Percentage

49% 100% 46% 100% 52% 100%

Inference:

There has been an increase in cases registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

(POCSO) Act from 2016-17 to 2017-18 i.e. 991 to 1,137. The highest number of POCSO cases (143)

are registered in Outer District in 2017-18.

52% of cases out of total rape cases are reported under POCSO Act in 2017-18.

*Note: Dwarka, Rohini and Shahdara are the new districts formed in Delhi from November 2017. Hence, no data was

obtained from these districts prior to 2017-18.


Table 4 : Number of Road Accidents, Persons Injured and Died from 2013 to 20174

Year Total

Accidents

Accidents with no injury

Simple Accidents

(With Injury)

Number of Persons Injured

Fatal Accidents

Number of Persons

Died

2013 7,566 169 5,619 7,098 1,778 1,820

2014 8,623 209 6,785 8,283 1,629 1,671

2015 8,085 160 6,343 8,258 1,582 1,622

2016 7,375 129 5,698 7,154 1,548 1,591

2017 6,673 91 5,017 6,604 1,565 1,584

Inference:

Average percentage share of fatal accidents to total road accidents has been 21% from 2013 to 2017,

with 8,288 people dying due to road accidents in Delhi in the past five years.

4 Source : https://delhitrafficpolice.nic.in/about-us/statistics/


Section B. Status on Police Reforms The State Security Commission has not been formed as per the Supreme Court order given on 22nd,

September 2006. One of the core roles of Commission was to advise the government on broad policy

guidelines for better policing in consultation with police chiefs and monitors efficacy of policing, initiate

preventive measures and ensure service-oriented functions of the police5.

5 http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/sscrd.pdf

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/sscrd.pdf


V. Police Personnel

Table 5: Designation wise number of police personnel difference between working forces from FY 2016-17 to FY 2017-18.

Sr. No.

Designation

FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Sanctioned Working

% Difference between

Sanctioned and

Working

Sanctioned Working


Sanctioned and

Working

1 Commissioner of

Police (C.P.) 1 1 0% 1 1 0%

2 Special Commissioner

of Police 12 13 8% 12 15 25%

3 Joint Commissioner of

Police (Jt. C.P.) 20 21 5% 20 15 -25%

4 Additional

Commissioner of Police (Addl. C.P.)

19 8 -58% 20 11 -45%

5 Deputy Commissioner

of Police (D.C.P.) 53 57 8% 54 58 7%

6 Additional Deputy Commissioner of

Police (Addl. D.C.P.) 54 36 -33% 54 31 -43%

7 Assistant

Commissioner of Police (A.C.P.)

348 264 -24% 348 199 -43%

8 Police Inspector (P.I.) 1,350 1,329 -2% 1,350 1,338 -1%

9 Police Sub - Inspector

(P.S.I.) 6,819 5,055 -26% 7,523 5,197 -31%

10 Assistant Police Sub-

Inspector (A.S.I) 6,759 7,123 5% 6,759 7,492 11%

11 Head Constable (H.C.) 21,579 19,892 -8% 24,393 20,198 -17%

12 Police Constable (P.C.) 47,671 42,795 -10% 54,030 49,528 -8%

Total Police Force 84,685 76,594 -10% 94,564 84,083 -11%

Inference: There appears to be an acute shortage of police personnel in Delhi Police department. As of March 2018, Positions of Additional Commissioner of Police (-45%), Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (-43%), Assistant Commissioner of Police (-43%) and Police Sub - Inspector (-31%) had the highest shortfall. There’s shortage of Police constable by 8% and this designation also need to be filled as shortage of these directly affects the investigation and law and order of the city.


Table 6 : Police Personnel details based on Areas of Delhi (165 Police Stations) as of 31st March 2018

Sr. No.

Area of Delhi No. of Police

Stations

Police Personnel

Sanctioned

Police Personnel Working

Difference between

Sanctioned and

Working

% difference between

Sanctioned and

Working

1 Central District 15 3,467 2,814 -653 -19%

2 West District 12 2,798 2,309 -489 -17%

3 East District 10 2,597 1,971 -626 -24%

4 Outer District 10 2,464 2,225 -239 -10%

5 Shahdara 10 2,496 2,269 -227 -9%

6 Rohini 11 3,687 2,922 -765 -21%

7 Dwarka District 10 2,143 2,097 -46 -2%

8 New Delhi District 9 2,438 2,184 -254 -10%

9 North District 13 3,310 2,683 -627 -19%

10 North East District 12 3,440 2,567 -873 -25%

11 North West District 14 3,577 2,877 -700 -20%

12 South District 15 4,104 3,347 -757 -18%

13 South East District 13 3,401 2,856 -545 -16%

14 South West District 9 2,338 1,779 -559 -24%

15 Airport 2 513 478 -35 -7%

Total 165 42,773 35,378 -7395 -17%

Inference:

Highest shortage of staff is in North East District (-25%), followed by South West District (-24%) and East

District (-24%) while there have been considerable number of crimes in these districts.


Table 7 : Police Personnel details based on Department as of 31st March 2018

Sr. No.

Department Police

Personnel Sanctioned

Police Personnel Working (Mar’17)


Difference between

Sanctioned and

Working (Mar’17)

% difference between

Sanctioned and

Working (Mar'17)

Difference between

Sanctioned and

Working (Mar'18)


Sanctioned and

Working (Mar'18)

1 Crime Branch

1,354 1,407 1,463 57 4% 109 8%

2 Delhi Arm

Force 9,116 7,629 7,934 -1,561 -17% -1,182 -13%

3 Security 7,330 7,088 7,411 -91 -1% 81 1%

4 SPUW & C 300 361 421 70 24% 121 40%

5 Traffic 5,961 5,771 5,698 -207 -3% -263 -4%

6 Other* 27,221 19,246 25,448 -2,427 -11% -1,773 -7%

Total 51,282 41,502 48,375 -4,159 -9% -2,907 -6%

Inference:

There is 6% shortage of staff in police force(Department wise) in Delhi as of March, 2018.

Delhi Arm Force is short of personnel by 13% as of March, 2018.

*Note: Other Department: Rly & Metro, E.O.W., Spl.Cell/Sb, Licensing, Spl. Branch, Vigilance, D.E. Cell, Frro, P.C.R., Ops/Comm.,

P&L, Central Armoury P & L, Vig, Phq & Comn., R. P. Bhawan, Phq, Ptc, Recruit Ptc, Under Posting, Gnct Sec/Oth, Directorate Of

Vigilance, Pcr/Driver Duty (Executive), Deputation To Other Dept, A C Branch


Table 8 : Police Personnel details based on Supervisory level officer (as of 31st Mar 2018)

Supervisory level officer

Police Personnel Sanctione

d

Police Personnel Working (Mar'17)

Difference between Sanctione

d and Working (Mar'17)

% Difference between Sanctione

d and Working (Mar'17)


Difference between Sanctione

d and Working (Mar’18)

% Difference between Sanctione

d and Working (Mar’18)

C.P., Special C.P., Jt.

C.P., Addl. C.P., D.C.P., Addl. DCP and A.C.P.

509 400 -107 -21% 330 -179 -35%

Inference:

Delhi Supervisory level officers’ posts suffer from a shortfall of 35%. This shortage has increased by 14%

from the previous year.


VI. Deliberations by Members of Parliament (MP) in Delhi Table 9: Number of questions asked on crime issues from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018

Name of MP

No. of Question asked on crime issues Total questions

Budget 2014 to Budget 2015

Monsoon 2015 to Budget 2016



Budget 2014 to Budget 2015




Meenakshi Lekhi

1 2 3 6 105 101 86 82

Maheish Girri

4 4 4 3 127 109 97 62

Manoj Tiwari

0 0 6 1 5 20 112 69

Parvesh Sahib Singh

1 0 1 5 29 18 56 53

Ramesh Bidhuri

0 1 6 3 22 47 75 32

Udit Raj 3 3 3 5 42 78 79 83

Total 9 10 23 23 330 373 505 381

Inferences:

The above data represents the questions asked by MPs on crime and police

personnel/infrastructure from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018.

Meenakshi Lekhi(6), Parvesh Sahib Singh (5) and Udit Raj (5) asked maximum number of questions

starting from Monsoon 2017 to Budget 2018.

Total questions asked during Monsoon 2017 to Budget 2018 were 381 from which only 23 were

on crime while if we see the total number of questions raised from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018,

of 1,589 questions raised, only 65 were on crime.


Table 10: Issues-wise number of questions asked on crime from Budget 2014 to Budget 2018

Issues

Number of Question asked on issues related to crime

Budget 2014 to Budget

2015

Monsoon 2015 to Budget

2016



Cyber Crime 2 1 4 2

First Information Report (FIR)

1 3 6 8

Human Resources Related 3 0 2 3

Police Station Infrastructure 1 1 1 1

Women Related Issues 1 1 2 0

Prison Custody 0 1 1 0

Illegal Immigrants 1 0 1 0

Schemes / Policies in Crime 0 2 3 2

Terrorism / Naxals / Extremists Related

0 1 1 0

Crime Related 0 0 2 7

Total 9 10 23 23

Inference:

No questions were raised by MPs on issues related to women in sessions starting from Monsoon 2017 to

Budget 2018. This is when there is an increase of rape cases by 3% in Delhi. (Refer to Table 1).


VII. Citizen Survey Data

Section I. Perception of Safety in Delhi Table 11: Percentage of people who feel unsafe in Delhi

Percentage of Respondents6 who feel unsafe in Delhi

Area of Delhi7

Delhi Mumbai North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Percentage of people not feeling secure in Delhi

37% 51% 36% 36% 39% 39% 38% 40% 14%

Percentage of people not feeling secure for women, children and senior citizens in one's locality

52% 60% 43% 39% 54% 47% 44% 50% 21%

Percentage of people not feeling secure while travelling from one place to another within the city

44% 55% 37% 40% 43% 48% 41%

44%

17%

Inference:

40% of the respondents do not feel secure in Delhi whereas 50% feel that Delhi is not secure for

women, children and senior citizens.

44% of respondents do not feel secure while travelling in Delhi, of which highest number of

respondents were from North East Delhi (55%).

A comparison between Delhi and Mumbai numbers (Annual Survey of Households), strictly going

on people’s perceptions, Delhi is not considered to be as secure by its residents.

6Data based on a household survey of 28,624 respondents across the city of Delhi. Kindly refer to Annexure 4 for more details on the survey methodology. 7North West Delhi includes: Civil Line, Narela, Rohini; North East Delhi includes: Civil Line, Shahadra North; Chandni Chowk includes: City, Civil Line, Karol Bagh, Paharganj, Rohini; New Delhi includes: Central Zone, Karol Bagh, Paharganj, South; West Delhi includes: Najafgarh and West; South Delhi includes: Central Zone, Najafgarh and South and East Delhi includes Central Zone, Shahadra North and Shahadra South Zone.


Table 12: Percentage of people who feel unsafe in Delhi of different socio-economic classes

Percentage of people who feel unsafe

Delhi Mumbai

SEC A SEC B&C SEC D&E SEC A SEC B&C SEC D&E

Percentage of people not feeling secure in Delhi

37% 39% 42% 16% 15% 13%

Percentage of people not feeling secure about women, children and senior citizens are in one's locality

47% 49% 52% 21% 20% 22%


40% 43% 48% 16% 16% 18%

Inference:

In Delhi, people belonging to lower SEC D & E (skilled and unskilled labour class) feel least secure than middle to higher SEC individuals (petty traders, businessman, supervisor, officer etc.). Even 52% people belonging to SEC D & E feel Delhi is not safe for women, children and senior citizens.

Across the sections A, B&C, and D&E; Mumbai feels more secure than Delhi.

Table 13: Percentage of people of different genders who feel unsafe in Delhi

Percentage of people who feel unsafe Delhi Mumbai

Males Females Males Females

Percentage of people not feeling secure in Delhi 38% 42% 15% 13%

Percentage of people not feeling secure about women, children and senior citizens are in one's locality

49% 51% 22% 20%


43% 47% 17% 16%

Inference:

Though there is not a huge difference in response between male and female respondents about

feeling safe in Delhi. But in comparison to Mumbai (13%), very large percentage of female

population i.e. 42% do not feel secure in Delhi.

Likewise, 47% of the women residing in Delhi do not feel secure while travelling from one place

to another within the city.


Section II. A) Survey Statistics for Respondents who have witnessed crime Table 14: Respondents who witnessed crime and have informed police and their satisfaction level in Delhi

Witnessed Crime North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi Mumbai

Percentage of respondents who witnessed crime

22% 25% 20% 20% 19% 17% 23% 21% 13%

Percentage of respondents who have witnessed crime that have informed police

53% 37% 43% 49% 45% 52% 43%

46%

45%

Percentage of respondents who had witnessed crime and informed police that were satisfied with their response

29% 26% 34% 27% 37% 26% 41%

32%

69%

Inference:

Of the total of 28,624 respondents, 21% respondents witnessed crime in Delhi.

Of the 46% respondents who reported to the police, 32% were satisfied with their response.

Respondents from North East Delhi (26%) and South Delhi (26%) were the least satisfied

respondents from among those who witnessed and reported crime to the police.

69% people in Mumbai who witnessed crime and informed the police were satisfied with the

response of police officials as opposed to a meagre 32% of people in Delhi who were satisfied

with the police response.


Table 15: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed crime in Delhi

Medium of Informing Police

North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi Mumbai

Called the helpline numbers like 100/103 etc.

83% 62% 82% 60% 67% 66% 71% 72% 48%

Called on the local telephone number of the police station

3% 16% 5% 19% 16% 12% 13% 11% 20%

Personally visited the nearest police station and complained

8% 13% 9% 12% 15% 21% 13% 13% 25%

Personally visited the nearest police station and registered an FIR

4% 7% 2% 8% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3%

Others 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4%

Inference:

From the respondents who witnessed crime in Delhi, 72% preferred to use the police helpline

numbers like 100/ 103 to inform the police.

Mumbai sees a good 25% of people personally visiting the police station and complaining as

opposed to Delhi which is just 13%.


Table 16: Reason for not informing Police by respondents who have witnessed crime in Delhi

Reason for not informing Police

North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi

Mumbai

I don’t have the time for all this

35% 29% 18% 11% 17% 18% 23% 23% 19%

I don’t have any faith in the police / legal system

17% 27% 20% 18% 21% 25% 19% 21% 19%

Speaking to the police officials is a painful task

24% 19% 24% 53% 35% 16% 17% 25% 25%

I don’t think it’s my duty to inform them

3% 4% 2% 4% 10% 9% 8% 6% 8%

I don’t want to get involved in any trouble

17% 11% 24% 8% 14% 28% 27% 18% 25%

Others 5% 10% 12% 7% 3% 4% 5% 7% 4%

Inference:

‘Speaking to the police officials is a painful task (25%)’ came out to be the biggest reason for not

informing Police by respondents who have witnessed crime.

‘The lack of faith in the police/ legal system’ (21%) clearly explains the fall in registration of cases

for most of the major crimes in Delhi.

18% of respondents did not inform police because they do not want to get involved in any trouble

even after witnessing a crime.


Section II. B) Survey Statistics for Respondents who have faced crime Table 17: Respondents who faced crime and have informed police and their satisfaction level in Delhi

Faced Crime North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi Mumbai

Percentage of respondents who faced crime

36% 35% 41% 33% 33% 41% 43% 37% 37%

Percentage of respondents who have faced crime that have informed police

62% 49% 61% 65% 65% 66% 67% 62% 49%

Percentage of respondents who had faced crime and informed police that were satisfied with their response

31% 27% 29% 29% 34% 34% 39% 33% 56%

Inference:

The percentage of respondents who faced crime and amongst those who faced crimes and

informed the police are comparable for both Delhi and Mumbai. However, respondents who were

satisfied with the response were a meagre percentage, 33% in Delhi as compared to Mumbai

(56%).

Respondents from East Delhi reported least satisfaction from the response they got from police

(only 27%).

The highest percentage of respondents who faced crime were from East Delhi (43%) and South

Delhi (41%) and Chandni Chowk (41%) areas.


Table 18: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have faced crime in Delhi


North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi Mumbai

Called the helpline numbers like 100/103 etc.

69% 54% 73% 61% 63% 60% 64% 64% 42%


6% 10% 5% 4% 14% 15% 14% 10% 18%


17% 21% 14% 25% 19% 22% 18% 19% 31%


6% 7% 5% 10% 4% 2% 4% 5% 5%

Others 2% 8% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 3%

Inference:

From the respondents who faced crime in Delhi, 64% used the police helpline numbers like 100/

103 to inform the police.

31% people in Mumbai preferred personally visiting the police station as opposed to Delhi which

is just 19% visiting police station to report crime.

The third most preferred medium of Informing Police by respondents who have faced crime in

Delhi was calling on the local telephone number of the police station (10%).


Table 19: Reason for not informing police by respondents who have faced crime

Reason for not informing police

North West Delhi

North East Delhi

Chandni Chowk

New Delhi

West Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

Delhi Mumbai

I don’t have the time for all this

22% 25% 17% 9% 18% 14% 17% 19% 16%

I don’t have any faith in the police / legal system

25% 29% 27% 21% 37% 42% 28% 30% 32%


29% 21% 15% 37% 24% 15% 14% 21% 23%

I don’t think it’s my duty to inform them

4% 13% 4% 13% 4% 5% 12% 8% 8%

I don’t want to get involved in any trouble

14% 8% 27% 18% 14% 23% 23% 17% 19%

Others 6% 5% 10% 2% 3% 3% 6% 5% 2%

Inference:

‘No faith in the police / legal system (30%)’ came out to be the biggest reason for not informing

police by respondents who have faced crime.

Respondents from North East Delhi (29%) have least faith in police/ legal system.

‘Speaking to the police officials is a painful task’ is the second highest reason for not informing

the police by respondents who faced crime.

Table 20: Respondents who witnessed crime or faced crime who have informed police and their satisfaction level (SEC Wise)

Delhi Mumbai

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

Respondents who witnessed crime & have informed

57% 53% 41% 50% 45% 44%

Respondents who faced crime & have informed

71% 58% 59% 56% 53% 44%

Respondents who had informed police and were satisfied with their response

34% 33% 31% 65% 63% 70%

Inference:

In Delhi, respondents who witnessed crime and have informed police were highest in SEC A (57%).

Also, they were the ones who are most satisfied with police response received (34%). While, SEC

D &E respondents are less keen to inform police when they witness (41%) or face crime (59%).

Satisfaction level of respondents from SEC D&E with the response on informing police is least i.e.

31%.


Table 21: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed or faced crime (SEC Wise)


Delhi Mumbai

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

Called the helpline numbers like 100/103 etc. 65% 69% 74% 45% 49% 46%


14% 12% 7% 26% 20% 18%


15% 15% 12% 23% 22% 27%


4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3%

Others 2% 1% 1% 2% 5% 6%

Inference:

In Delhi, 69% respondents from SEC B & C called up help lines (100/103) numbers to inform police;

whereas only 5% of them personally visited the nearest police station to register an FIR.

4% of the respondents from SEC A in Delhi prefer to personally visit the police stations and register

an FIR.

Only 7% of SEC D & E in Delhi called on the local telephone number of the police station.

There is a noticeable difference between the Delhi and Mumbai numbers for Section D&E where

in Mumbai 27% people belonging to this section personally visited the police station to complain

as opposed to only 12 % in Delhi.

Table 22: Reason for not informing police of different socio-economic classes.

Reason for not informing police

Delhi Mumbai

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

SEC A SEC B&C

SEC D&E

I don't have the time for all this 19% 23% 26% 15% 24% 17%

I don't have any faith in the police/legal system

21% 23% 20% 21% 14% 22%


22% 23% 25% 27% 22% 27%

I don't think it's my duty to inform them 4% 7% 6% 4% 8% 8%

I don't want to get involved in any trouble 26% 17% 17% 26% 28% 23%

Others 7% 7% 5% 7% 4% 3%

Inference: In Delhi, 25% of the respondents from SEC D&E didn’t inform the police because ‘Speaking to

the police officials is a painful task’. Moreover, 20% of the respondents from SEC D&E in Delhi, ‘don't have

any faith in the police/legal system’


Section III. Survey Statistics as per Gender

Table 23: Respondents who witnessed crime or faced crime who have informed police and their satisfaction

Delhi Mumbai


Respondents who witnessed crime that have informed 49% 52% 46% 44%

Respondents who faced crime that have informed 65% 57% 50% 49%

Respondents who had informed police that were satisfied with their response

34% 31% 62% 74%

Inference:

Only 31% of women and 34% of men in Delhi who had informed police, were satisfied with their response.

It is significantly less percentage in comparison to Mumbai.

Table 24: Medium of Informing Police by respondents who have witnessed or faced crime

Medium of Informing Police Delhi Mumbai


Called the helpline numbers like 100/103 etc. 70% 69% 46% 49%


12% 10% 23% 14%


13% 15% 23% 28%


4% 4% 4% 3%

Others 1% 3% 5% 5%

Inference:

Very less men and women prefer visiting to police stations and file an FIR. Accessibility of police stations

is one of the issues faced by citizens in Delhi.


Table 25: Reason for not informing the police among respondents who have witnessed crime or faced crime

Reason for not informing the police Delhi Mumbai


I don't have the time for all this 25% 22% 21% 18%

I don't have any faith in the police/legal system 19% 24% 20% 16%

Speaking to the police officials is a painful task 23% 24% 23% 27%

I don't think it's my duty to inform them 6% 6% 6% 9%

I don't want to get involved in any trouble 19% 19% 25% 26%

Others 7% 6% 4% 4%

Inference:

‘Speaking to the police officials is a painful task’ is one the major reasons for not informing police among

both the genders in Delhi. This could be one of the reasons why a lot of citizens do not prefer visiting a

police station and file an FIR.


Annexure 1: MP (Members of Parliament) Region-wise crime reported from FY 2014-15 to FY2017-18

Nature of Crime Year / Name of MP

Harsh Vardhan

Maheish Giri

Manoj Tiwari

Meenakshi Lekhi

Parvesh Sahib Singh

Ramesh Bidhuri

Udit Raj

Murder (Sec.302)

2014-15 92 101 149 122 85 152 177

2015-16 100 83 192 103 103 153 214

2016-17 100 93 135 113 83 155 212

2017-18 95 84 111 91 79 130 230

Att to Murder (Sec.307)

2014-15 139 159 204 163 123 219 210

2015-16 159 131 245 145 125 198 229

2016-17 106 130 210 137 99 151 207

2017-18 116 89 165 142 79 140 220

Rape (Sec.376)

2014-15 233 468 439 618 353 763 543

2015-16 306 464 574 589 349 710 649

2016-17 305 461 479 585 312 653 677

2017-18 360 466 432 569 298 641 680

M.O.Women (Sec.354,354A,B,C,D)

2014-15 601 937 1022 1395 731 1652 1058

2015-16 626 874 1162 1137 631 1395 1022

2016-17 601 786 902 1092 576 1223 1094

2017-18 589 686 698 973 495 1085 882

Riots (Sec.147-151,153A)

2014-15 30 37 58 35 9 40 30

2015-16 36 10 74 14 19 26 44

2016-17 15 21 27 16 3 16 32

2017-18 9 7 15 12 1 10 10

Kidnapping / Abduction (Sec.363-369,364A)

2014-15 1131 1389 1923 1608 1139 2025 2443

2015-16 1292 1436 2144 1612 1119 2104 2500

2016-17 1010 1240 1825 1518 1020 1953 2296

2017-18 1033 1059 1398 1358 984 1751 2098

Burglary (Day and Night) (Sec.454,457)

2014-15 1929 2319 2659 2994 1448 3318 3800

2015-16 2581 2099 3330 2751 1651 3029 4767

2016-17 1629 1529 2279 2247 1055 2206 3629

2017-18 1105 1000 1336 1375 1014 1577 2240

Chain Snatching (Sec.356)

2014-15 826 1275 1189 1056 1211 1234 1723

2015-16 416 793 578 713 625 655 1938

2016-17 881 712 1481 673 1085 637 1709

2017-18 360 438 520 422 688 561 691

Robbery / Dacoity (Sec.392-395,397,398)

2014-15 1331 1264 2502 1244 805 1349 2344

2015-16 1485 1214 3030 1271 978 1489 2854

2016-17 810 944 1520 624 387 590 1701

2017-18 522 573 793 574 458 605 818

Theft (Sec.379)

2014-15 9840 11723 11297 14330 7457 15134 16634

2015-16 10302 9301 12233 13796 8178 14965 17208

2016-17 8542 6136 11982 9774 4945 9950 16110

2017-18 13969 16610 16143 19572 10839 22000 19457


Annexure 2 – Sources of Data Section I (Crime Statistics) – Right to information (RTI) applications were filed in all 12 districts of Delhi to

get the crime statistics from all 165 police stations. For Crime In India statistics, RTI applications were filled

in all 12 DCP offices from where information from every SO Branch was provided to us.

Section III (Police Personnel) – Right to information (RTI) application was filed in Delhi Police

Headquarters for strength of police personnel in all the police stations of Delhi. Establishment Branch

provided us the required information.

Section IV (Deliberations by Delhi MPs) – Detailed information regarding questions asked by various MPs

during Budget 2014 to Budget 2018 was taken from the below mention link:

http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/Qtextsearch.aspx

Section V (Survey Data)

Household survey of 28,624 respondents across the city of Delhi was commissioned to Hansa Research by

Praja to study the perception of people based on prefixed criteria and suitable methodology had been

designed (whose detail is given below) to meet survey objectives.

http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/Qtextsearch.aspx


Annexure 3 – Survey Methodology

Praja Foundation had commissioned the household survey to Hansa Research and the survey

methodology followed is as below:

In order to meet the desired objectives of the study, we represented the city by covering a sample

from each of its 272 wards. Target Group for the study was:

Both Males & Females

18 years and above

Belonging to that particular ward.

Sample quotas were set for representing gender and age groups on the basis of their split available

through Indian Readership Study (Large scale baseline study conducted nationally by Media Research

Users Council (MRUC) &Hansa Research group).

The required information was collected through face to face interviews with the help of structured

questionnaire.

In order to meet the respondent within a ward, following sampling process was followed:

5 prominent areas in the ward were identified as the starting point

In each starting point about 20 individuals were selected randomly and the questionnaire was

administered with them.

Once the survey was completed, sample composition of age & gender was corrected to match the

population profile using the baseline data from IRS. This helped us to make the survey findings more

representatives in nature and ensured complete coverage.

The survey was conducted during the period May-June 2018.

The total study sample was 28,624.


Annexure 4 – Socio Economic Classification (SEC) Note

SEC is used to measure the affluence level of the sample, and to differentiate people on this basis and study their behaviour / attitude on other variables. While income (either monthly household or personal income) appears to be an obvious choice for such a purpose, it comes with some limitations:

Respondents are not always comfortable revealing sensitive information such as income.

The response to the income question can be either over-claimed (when posturing for an interview) or under-claimed (to avoid attention). Since there is no way to know which of these it is and the extent of over-claim or under-claim, income has a poor ability to discriminate people within a sample.

Moreover, affluence may well be a function of the attitude a person has towards consumption rather than his (or his household’s) absolute income level.

Attitude to consumption is empirically proven to be well defined by the education level of the Chief Wage Earner (CWE*) of the household as well as his occupation. The more educated the CWE, the higher is the likely affluence level of the household. Similarly, depending on the occupation that the CWE is engaged in, the affluence level of the household is likely to differ – so a skilled worker will be lower down on the affluence hierarchy as compared to a CWE who is businessman.

Socio Economic Classification or SEC is thus a way of classifying households into groups’ basis the education and occupation of the CWE. The classification runs from A1 on the uppermost end thru E2 at the lower most end of the affluence hierarchy. The SEC grid used for classification in market research studies is given below:

EDUCATION

OCCUPATION

Illiterate

literate but

no formal

schooling /

School up to

4th

School

5th – 9th

SSC/

HSC

Some

College but

not Grad

Grad/

Post-

Grad

Gen.

Grad/

Post-

Grad

Prof.

Unskilled Workers E2 E2 E1 D D D D

Skilled Workers E2 E1 D C C B2 B2

Petty Traders E2 D D C C B2 B2

Shop Owners D D C B2 B1 A2 A2

Businessmen/

Industrialists with no.

of employees

None D C B2 B1 A2 A2 A1

1 – 9 C B2 B2 B1 A2 A1 A1

10 + B1 B1 A2 A2 A1 A1 A1

Self-employed Professional D D D B2 B1 A2 A1

Clerical / Salesman D D D C B2 B1 B1

Supervisory level D D C C B2 B1 A2

Officers/ Executives Junior C C C B2 B1 A2 A2

Officers/ExecutivesMiddle/ Senior B1 B1 B1 B1 A2 A1 A1

*CWE is defined as the person who takes the main responsibility of the household expenses


Annexure 5: Message published by NCRB (National Crime Record Bureau) on Crime in India 2016.

state of policing and law & order in delhi february 2019 · state of policing and law &...

Documents