Delhi parks’ safety problem is not simply that some lights do not work. It is that safety changes sharply within the same public space: a guarded entrance can lead to an unmanned gate, a lit pathway can give way to dense darkness, and an official closing time can coexist with people entering through the boundary. The result is a fragmented system in which access, visibility, maintenance and supervision do not operate together.
A spot check by The Times of India across Buddha Jayanti Park, Swarn Jayanti Park, Vijay Mandal Park and Sheesh Mahal Park found different versions of the same weakness. Some sections were lit and staffed, while secluded stretches remained difficult to monitor. In several locations, visitors had to rely on phone flashlights, avoid deeper areas or remain uncertain about when the park would actually close.
The concern has gained urgency after the alleged gang rape of a minor at Aastha Kunj Park brought safety inside Delhi’s green spaces into focus. The incidents recorded in the report also show that these concerns are not limited to one recent case. Buddha Jayanti Park has witnessed serious crimes in the past, including the rape of a 17-year-old student in 2003 and an alleged attempted rape and assault in 2010. Swarn Jayanti Park has been associated with the discovery of a murdered businessman in 2013, the killing of two cousins in 2017 and the stabbing death of an 18-year-old in January 2026.
These incidents do not establish that every park is unsafe at every hour. They do, however, expose the limits of treating a park as a single, uniformly managed space. A large urban park is a network of paths, gates, toilets, parking areas, water bodies, vegetation and service facilities. If even one of those elements is poorly lit, unstaffed or disconnected from the others, the visitor’s experience can change within minutes.
The problem was particularly visible at Buddha Jayanti Park in the Central Ridge. The park’s displayed timings were 5am to 7pm between April 1 and September 30 and 6am to 6pm between October 1 and March 31. Yet, near closing time, Gate No. 2 remained open and no guard was stationed there. The main pathway had lamp posts, but inner tracks disappeared into thick vegetation and had no visible lighting in several places.
The park’s security arrangement also appeared dependent on a final sweep rather than continuous control of the premises. A guard said four people were assigned to look after the park, but others had gone to their villages, leaving him to check the grounds and lock the gates. Toilets were being locked at 6.15pm and visitors were being asked to leave, but the unguarded entrance and secluded tracks raised questions about whether the authority could confirm that everyone had exited.
At Rohini’s Swarn Jayanti Park, the scale of the site magnified the challenge. The 170-acre park includes gardens, boating areas and picnic spots. The entrance area appeared active and well used, but visibility and security diminished deeper inside. The report found visitors using phone flashlights, while residents described avoiding isolated stretches after dark. The park’s closing time was also unclear: some visitors cited 7.30pm, others 8pm, while Google listed it as open until 11pm.
That uncertainty is not a minor administrative detail. A public facility cannot be effectively secured when users, guards and digital listings follow different operating hours. Closing time determines when staff should clear the site, when gates should be locked, and whether someone found inside is a legitimate late visitor or a trespasser. In a large park with dense vegetation and multiple access points, unclear timings can make the last stage of supervision especially difficult.
Vijay Mandal Park in Begumpur showed a different version of the same problem. Its entrance board listed timings from 5am to 8pm. At 8pm, guards shut the main gate and asked people inside to leave. At the same time, two people were seen climbing over the boundary grille and entering the park. A guard also said there was another gate on the opposite side, but it was unclear whether that gate was open or staffed after 8pm.
This is where lighting and access control become inseparable. Better lighting may improve visibility, but it cannot compensate for uncontrolled entry. A closed main gate does not secure a park if another gate remains uncertain or if the boundary can be crossed easily. Conversely, guards cannot monitor every path effectively when dark pockets and dense vegetation prevent clear sightlines.
Students using Vijay Mandal Park said poor lighting added to their unease. One student said trespassers were common and that women did not feel safe, while another said she avoided the park after sunset. Visitors also alleged that people entered the park to consume drugs. The park has seen serious violence, including the killing of a Congress worker while taking a morning walk last year and the death of a woman who was attacked with an iron rod in 2023.
Sheesh Mahal Park in Shalimar Bagh demonstrates why a simple comparison between ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ parks is inadequate. The DDA-managed park was mostly well lit and had guard rooms at several points. Seven to eight guards were seen stationed at one location, and guards said they patrolled the premises. Yet, several lights were not working in deeper sections, creating dark patches as the evening crowd thinned.
The park’s earlier history shows how physical conditions can intersect with serious crime. A 2017 gang rape of a 16-year-old and the assault and robbery of her male friend exposed faulty high-mast lights, broken boundary walls and a shortage of guards at the time. Although the boundary has since been replaced with a grille and security staffing appears to have improved, the continuing presence of dark stretches shows that infrastructure upgrades and staffing do not automatically produce consistent safety.
The evidence points to four connected governance tasks. The first is lighting maintenance. Installing lamp posts is not enough if lights fail or are not switched on during the hours when visitors remain inside. The second is vegetation management. Overgrown shrubs and narrow trails reduce visibility and create secluded pockets, even where the main path is well maintained.
The third task is access management. Gates, boundary walls, parking areas and internal paths need to function as one system. A guard at one entrance cannot secure a park if another entry point is open, unstaffed or easy to climb. The fourth is staffing and deployment. A nominal guard count says little unless personnel are positioned across the park’s vulnerable points and have a clear process for patrols, visitor evacuation and final closure.
The report also reveals a coordination gap between official information and actual operations. Boards displayed one set of timings, visitors cited another and Google carried a third. Such inconsistencies can undermine both public confidence and enforcement. They also make it harder for citizens to know whether they are within permitted hours or whether staff are expected to be present.
For cities, the larger question is whether public parks are being managed as complete public infrastructure or merely as landscaped plots. A park’s value depends on more than greenery. It depends on whether people can reach, use and leave it safely; whether families, women, older residents and students feel able to occupy it; and whether the authority can maintain basic visibility and control across its full area.
The Delhi examples do not support a single verdict on every park. Sheesh Mahal Park appears better staffed than some of the others, while Buddha Jayanti Park, Swarn Jayanti Park and Vijay Mandal Park display different combinations of lighting, access and monitoring gaps. What they collectively confirm is that safety is uneven within parks and can deteriorate beyond the visible entrance or main pathway.
The developments to monitor are therefore practical: whether dark stretches are identified and repaired, whether vegetation is managed, whether closing times are standardised across signage and digital listings, and whether all gates are staffed or secured. Until those systems work together, Delhi’s parks will continue to offer public space that is formally open but not equally usable across every path, hour or visitor group.
