Street Harassment in Delhi: Coping, Avoidance and the Cost to Women’s Mobility

CASE STUDY 31 / 200

Research area: India — Delhi; street harassment and public-space access

Status: Independent desk-research draft; qualitative evidence should not be read as prevalence for all women

Abstract / Executive Summary

This case study examines how street harassment can affect women beyond an individual encounter: route choice, timing, clothing and behaviour may be adjusted to reduce unwanted attention, while public-space use becomes a process of risk management. A qualitative study of 20 women in Delhi provides contextual evidence about reported experiences and coping strategies. The report focuses on the consequences of shifting responsibility for safety onto women and identifies product and policy safeguards that avoid treating self-protection as a substitute for accountability.

Keywords

street harassment; Delhi; mobility; avoidance; qualitative research; public space

1. Introduction and Research Question

How do reported experiences of street harassment shape women’s mobility, coping strategies and expectations of institutions?

The purpose of this case study is to translate evidence into practical questions for prevention, service design and evaluation. It does not claim to investigate an individual incident or to provide a comprehensive account of all experiences.

2. Methods and Evidence Selection

Narrative desk review centred on Dhillon and Bakaya’s qualitative study of 20 women aged 18–30 in Delhi. Findings are summarised from the article abstract and should be checked against the full paper before quotation or detailed methodological claims. No interviews were conducted for this report.

3. Case Context

Street harassment can include unwanted comments, staring, following, intimidation and physical contact. These behaviours vary in severity, but repeated or anticipated harassment can influence whether, when and how a person uses public space. A safety response that only advises women to avoid certain places may reduce exposure in the short term while preserving the conditions that restrict access.

4. Findings from the Reviewed Evidence

• The Delhi qualitative study interviewed 20 women aged 18–30 about the forms of street harassment they experienced, perceived consequences, coping responses and changes they wanted.
• The abstract reports that participants described harassment occurring often in crowded locations and in broad daylight. This cautions against treating darkness or isolation as the only risk indicators.
• Participants attributed harassment to broader attitudes toward women and weak implementation of laws; the study abstract also reports perceptions of police apathy and the burden placed on women to keep themselves safe.
• The study is qualitative and small. It helps explain experiences and mechanisms, but it does not estimate population prevalence or prove that all Delhi women share the same experiences.

5. Discussion and Interpretation

Avoidance, route alteration, accompaniment and heightened vigilance may be rational short-term responses, but they can create a hidden mobility cost. Evaluation should therefore ask not only whether an incident occurred, but also whether a woman abandoned a trip, arrived late, changed employment or education choices, or felt required to seek accompaniment. These outcomes should be measured without implying that responsibility lies with the person experiencing harassment.

6. Legal and Policy Context

Legal classification depends on conduct and current law. This report does not determine whether any specific incident meets a criminal threshold. Reporting options and applicable law must be verified with current official sources and qualified local support.

7. Potential VETRIPEN Design Implications

The following are design hypotheses for research and testing, not claims that VETRIPEN currently provides these capabilities or has demonstrated effectiveness.

• Provide user-controlled incident notes with optional time, place and description; avoid requiring a user to classify the event before getting help.
• Offer discreet trusted-contact check-ins and a quick exit from the screen; clearly explain any visible notifications or device traces.
• Provide an evidence-preservation checklist that avoids prompting risky confrontation or unlawful recording.
• Include an option to record a trip disruption or avoidance outcome, separate from a formal police complaint.

8. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

• Use participatory safety audits at varied times, including busy daytime locations, rather than assuming risk is limited to isolated night-time spaces.
• Create clear, trauma-informed complaint pathways and communicate what happens after a report is made.
• Track access outcomes—trip abandonment, route changes and perceived freedom of movement—alongside incident counts.
• Test interfaces with women of different ages, disabilities, occupations and levels of digital access.

Suggested metrics for future pilots: task completion under stress; consent comprehension; alert success/failure rates; false activations; accessibility task success; user-reported sense of control; trip abandonment or route change where relevant; and privacy complaints. Choose only metrics appropriate to the specific intervention and predefine how they will be measured.

9. Limitations

The report relies on a small qualitative study and does not present new fieldwork. Findings are contextual, not representative estimates. Avoid treating the paper’s abstract as a substitute for full-text appraisal.

10. Conclusion

The evidence supports a context-aware, rights-based approach that combines women’s lived experience, service accountability, physical conditions and carefully governed technology. Any proposed intervention should be tested locally, report failures honestly and avoid transferring the burden of prevention to women.

11. References and Source Notes

1. Megha Dhillon & Suparna Bakaya (2014). Street Harassment: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Young Women in Delhi. SAGE Open. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014543786
2. Sanghamitra Roy & Ajay Bailey (2021). Safe in the City? Negotiating safety, public space and the male gaze in Kolkata, India. Cities, 117, 103321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103321

12. Research and Ethics Declaration

No original interviews, participant recruitment, surveys or field observations were conducted for this report. No participant quotations have been invented. Any product implications are proposals, not validated outcomes. Before external publication, verify full-text sources, bibliographic details, current laws and all numerical claims against primary materials.

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research