Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking immediate and urgent directions to the respondents to formulate and implement interim measures, in a time bound manner, till adequate SOP/laws/guidelines etc. are prepared to address situations of bomb threat emails targeting schools in Delhi. Sanjeev Narula, J., directed GNCTD and Delhi Police to finalize and implement the draft action plans and SOPs in a time-bound manner, conduct regular mock drills in schools under police supervision to ensure preparedness and assign specific nodal officers in each zone to oversee bomb threat responses.
The petitioner specifically recounted a distressing incident on 26-04-2024, when a bomb threat email disrupted their child’s school, causing panic among students, parents, and staff. It was highlighted that the repeated occurrence of such incidents, the petitioner alleged negligence on the part of the Delhi Police and the Delhi Government in addressing these threats. It was argued that the authorities failed to implement adequate preventive and responsive measures, thereby jeopardizing the safety and security of students, teachers, and other stakeholders.
This petition was filed to compel the respondents, including the Delhi Police and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to formulate a robust action plan to address bomb threats. The petitioner sought the establishment of comprehensive guidelines, including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and emergency protocols, to ensure the safety of schools. The urgency of the matter was underscored by an incident on 01-05-2024, where over 200 schools in Delhi received simultaneous bomb threat emails, resulting in widespread chaos and fear.
The petitioner criticized the respondents’ reactive approach and inadequate action plans, emphasizing that they were ineffective in preventing or mitigating such threats. The petitioner accused the authorities of failing to conduct mock drills, educate stakeholders, or deploy specialized teams to handle emergencies. Furthermore, it was argued that the authorities had not devised strategies to address the unique challenges posed by hoax threats facilitated by modern technologies like VPNs and the dark web.
The Delhi Police presented a status report outlining existing SOPs for bomb disposal squads and draft action plans prepared in consultation with stakeholders. They detailed measures such as deploying male and female police personnel, maintaining standby medical teams, and ensuring the presence of bomb disposal squads during emergencies. However, their submissions lacked evidence of implementation or practical efficacy.
Representing over 500 private schools, the Committee recommended the declaration of schools as “no-tolerance zones” and proposed measures like prohibiting hawking zones around school premises, installing CCTV cameras, and educating stakeholders through seminars. The Committee also urged media guidelines to prevent the dissemination of unverified or panic-inducing information during such emergencies.
The GNCTD submitted status reports outlining nodal authorities responsible for handling bomb threats and the issuance of various circulars to address such situations. They also informed the Court of an under-review comprehensive response plan in booklet form.
The Court acknowledged the gravity of the petitioner’s concerns regarding the safety and security of school children amidst recurring bomb threats. It recognized the petitioner’s frustration with the lack of substantive action but emphasized the practical challenges law enforcement agencies face in combating hoax threats in the digital age.
The court noted that while a perfect prevention mechanism is unrealistic, the authorities must strengthen deterrence through swift and decisive action against perpetrators. It stressed the importance of educating stakeholders, conducting regular mock drills, and ensuring minimal dependence on parents during emergencies. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the need for better coordination among schools, the police, and municipal authorities to mitigate panic and ensure smooth evacuation processes.
The Court directed as follows:
-
Respondent 1 and 2 shall develop a comprehensive action plan, which shall include a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for addressing bomb threats and related emergencies. The SOP must clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, school management, and municipal authorities, ensuring seamless coordination and implementation.
-
The action plan, encompassing the SOP, shall be finalized by Respondent 1 and 2 in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including representatives from schools, law enforcement agencies, concerned municipal authorities, and other state departments.
-
The Petitioner, who has raised valid and significant concerns in this matter, is permitted to submit a detailed representation identifying specific suggestions or perceived gaps in the measures under consideration. These representations shall be considered by the Respondent 1 and 2 while finalizing the action plan and SOP.
-
Once finalized, the action plan and SOP shall be disseminated among all concerned parties.
-
To facilitate effective implementation, Respondents shall conduct regular training sessions for school staff, students, and other stakeholders.
-
A grievance redressal mechanism shall be established to address concerns raised by affected parties and stakeholders. On the basis of feedback, reviews and updates to the plan should also be undertaken to adapt to evolving challenges.
[Arpit Bhargav v. GNCTD, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8061, decided on 14-11-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Ms. Hina Bhargava, Ms. Sania Yusuf, Mr. Sarthak Sharma and Mr. Pankaj, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Ms. Yosha Dutt and Ms. Rashi Agarwal, Advocates for R-3.