collaboration among multiple stakeholders, is a task that demands careful thought and deliberation, something which is better handled by the executive. It needs no reiteration that matters of policy formulation, particularly in the sensitive realm of public safety, are beyond the Court’s purview. The suggestions given by the Petitioner, such as mock drills, designated assembly points, automated alerts, and public awareness campaigns, are undoubtedly constructive and merit consideration, however, it is for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to assess their feasibility and incorporate them into a comprehensive action plan tailored to Delhi’s unique challenges. 14. Additionally, the Petitioner suggests leveraging technology, for countering sophisticated threats. While these recommendations are appealing, however, such measures must be balanced with practical limitations, resource allocation, and expert consultations. It is not the Court’s role to dictate technological solutions, but the Respondents must reflect on these advanced methods to combat these threats. 15. The Court observes that the Respondents have already taken initial steps to address these concerns, as reflected in the draft action plans, standing operating procedures, and status reports placed on record. However, it is imperative that these measures are finalized and implemented promptly, rather than remaining confined to a conceptual or deliberative stage. The Respondents must formulate an effective strategy to address bomb threats and prevent potential disasters, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and through coordinated efforts between various agencies, including law enforcement, municipal authorities, and representative bodies of school administrations.
