Delhi’s parks are often treated as finished public spaces once pathways, lawns and lamp posts are installed. But an on-ground review across Buddha Jayanti Park, Swarn Jayanti Park, Vijay Mandal Park and Sheesh Mahal Park shows a more complicated reality: safety changes sharply within the same park, depending on lighting, vegetation, boundary access, guard deployment and whether anyone is monitoring the premises.
The review by the Times of India followed the alleged gang rape of a minor at Aastha Kunj Park, which brought renewed attention to safety inside the capital’s green spaces. Its findings point to a structural problem rather than a single missing facility. A park can have a guarded entrance and illuminated main path while leaving internal trails, secondary gates and secluded stretches outside effective supervision.
That distinction matters because large urban parks are not single, easily observable rooms. They are networks of paths, lawns, wooded pockets, toilets, lakes, parking areas and multiple entry points. Their safety depends on the relationship between physical design and daily management. A lamp post that does not work, a gate that remains open or a guard who cannot cover the entire site can create a blind spot even when the park appears well maintained from the entrance.
At Buddha Jayanti Park in the Central Ridge, the contrast was visible within a few minutes’ walk. Gate No. 2 remained open at 6pm, with no guard stationed at the entrance. A groomed lane towards the canteen had lamp posts, but they had not been switched on as the park approached its closing time. The tracks in the opposite direction narrowed into thick vegetation, with some paths lacking visible lighting altogether.
The park’s operating arrangements also appeared dependent on a final sweep rather than continuous control of access. Its displayed timings were 5am to 7pm from April 1 to September 30 and 6am to 6pm from October 1 to March 31. At 6.15pm, toilets were being locked and visitors were asked to leave. A guard in civilian clothes said he was checking the park before locking it, adding that four people were assigned to look after the site but that the others had gone to their villages.
The history of Buddha Jayanti Park makes the gap between formal provision and practical control more consequential. A 17-year-old Delhi University student was raped there in 2003, and four personnel were eventually convicted. In 2010, two drivers associated with Delhi Police were arrested for allegedly attempting to rape a woman and assaulting her companion. These earlier cases do not establish that every poorly lit area will become a crime site, but they show why lighting, patrols and access control cannot be treated as cosmetic features.
Swarn Jayanti Park in Rohini presents the same challenge at a much larger scale. Spread across 170 acres, the park has gardens, boating areas and picnic spaces. The entrance can appear active and well lit, but the Times of India found that visibility reduced deeper inside. Visitors used mobile-phone flashlights at several points, while guards were difficult to spot.
The scale of the park makes management particularly important. A large green space cannot be made safe simply by placing a guard at the primary gate. Visitors need to know which routes are open, whether internal lighting is functional, when the park closes and whether staff are patrolling areas beyond the main public zone. In Swarn Jayanti Park, even the closing time appeared unclear: visitors cited 7.30pm and 8pm, while Google listed the park as open until 11pm. People were also seen inside beyond the timings mentioned by some visitors.
Residents described a safety geography shaped by familiarity. One visitor said she avoided going deep into the park after dark. Another said she knew which areas to avoid and claimed that couples, gamblers and smokers gathered in deeper sections. A woman visiting with her husband said she felt comfortable when accompanied but found isolated stretches uncomfortable when alone. These accounts show how weak institutional clarity transfers the burden of safety to park users, especially women, who must learn informal maps of risk.
The park’s past incidents add to that concern. A businessman’s body was found in a lake in 2013 after his throat had been slit, and the park was reportedly shut before reopening in 2015. In 2017, two 19-year-old cousins were chased and stabbed to death inside it. In January 2026, an 18-year-old was stabbed to death. The presence of serious crimes over time does not by itself prove that current infrastructure caused them, but it underlines the need for transparent, consistently enforced safety systems.
At Vijay Mandal Park in Begumpur, the central problem was not simply darkness but the inability to secure the perimeter. The park’s entrance board listed timings of 5am to 8pm. At 8pm, two guards closed the main gate and asked people inside to leave. At the same time, two people were seen climbing the iron grille and entering the park. A guard said another gate existed on the opposite side, but he was unsure whether it remained open or whether guards there would continue to man it after 8pm.
This is a basic governance failure in public-space management: the formal closing time does not necessarily correspond to actual exclusion. If one gate is closed while another remains accessible, the park has no single operational boundary. That weakens accountability because staff cannot confidently establish who is inside, whether the premises have been cleared or which agency is responsible for the other entrance.
Students using Vijay Mandal Park said poor lighting added to their unease. One student described trespassers as common and called for more lighting, while another said she avoided the park after sunset. The park has also witnessed serious violence, including the shooting and beating of a Congress worker during a morning walk last year and the killing of a woman who was struck with an iron rod in 2023.
Sheesh Mahal Park in Shalimar Bagh demonstrates why a single rating of “safe” or “unsafe” can conceal important differences. The DDA-managed park was mostly well lit, with guard rooms at several points. The Times of India also found seven to eight guards stationed at one location, who said they patrolled the park. Yet several lights were not working in deeper areas, leaving dark patches as the evening crowd thinned.
The park’s history again shows how physical defects can become part of a wider safety problem. In 2017, a 16-year-old girl was gang-raped inside the park and her male friend was assaulted and robbed. The case exposed faulty high-mast lights, broken boundary walls and a shortage of guards at the time. In August 2023, a labourer was found dead inside the park, with police registering a murder case.
There are signs of improvement as well. A resident said conditions were better than three or four years earlier, when gamblers used to frequent the park, after ex-Army personnel became guards. That observation is important because it suggests that staffing and the quality of deployment can affect how a public space is experienced. But better guarding does not remove the need for functioning lights, clear boundaries and regular inspection. A guard can deter or respond to incidents only in areas that can be seen and reached.
The evidence across the four parks points to several layers of responsibility. Park-owning or managing agencies are responsible for maintenance, lighting, gates, vegetation and staff deployment. Police and local administration have roles in responding to crime and coordinating on public safety. Yet the reported conditions suggest that these functions are not operating as one integrated system. Closing times are unclear, different gates appear to follow different rules, and visitors may not know whom to approach when a light fails or an unauthorised entry remains possible.
The design of parks also matters. Dense vegetation, narrow internal tracks and isolated facilities can create spaces that are difficult to observe. Removing vegetation or illuminating every metre may not always be the appropriate response, but the reporting shows that the current balance can leave routes practically unusable after dark. A park designed for daytime recreation can become a different environment when visibility falls and the crowd disperses.
The data available in the report is primarily site-based rather than statistical. It records a 170-acre park, displayed operating hours, visible gaps between lamp posts, the number of guards reported at one park and a series of past violent incidents. That evidence cannot establish a crime rate for Delhi’s parks or compare their safety with other cities. It does, however, establish a recurring operational pattern: the presence of infrastructure at the entrance does not guarantee safety across the full public space.
The larger urban question is whether Delhi’s parks are being managed as public infrastructure or merely maintained as landscaped areas. A public park is not only grass, trees and pathways. It is also a civic facility with operating hours, access rules, maintenance schedules, surveillance responsibilities and a duty to remain usable by different groups. If these systems are unclear, the city may formally provide open space while practically restricting its safe use to daylight hours or accompanied visits.
The reporting confirms that Delhi’s park safety problem is uneven rather than uniform. Some parks have guards, lighting and active entrances, but still contain dark or secluded pockets. Others have unclear closing arrangements or accessible boundaries. What remains to be established through official records is how lighting faults are logged and repaired, how many guards are assigned to each park, whether patrol schedules are documented, and which agency is accountable when several gates or departments are involved. Those details will determine whether the deficiencies are isolated maintenance lapses or evidence of a wider failure in the governance of public green spaces.
