United Residents Joint Action (URJA) stands as Delhi’s foremost umbrella organization representing Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs). Since its establishment in 2005 under the Societies Registration Act, URJA has championed citizen-centric governance, civic accountability, community-based security, and sustainable urban development. Over the years, it has built an extensive network of more than 2,500 RWAs and numerous civil society organizations across the National Capital Territory.
Moreover, URJA actively addresses some of Delhi’s most pressing urban challenges, including air pollution, waste management, water security, public health, urban infrastructure, traffic regulation, and citizen participation in policymaking. Through rigorous research, stakeholder consultations, evidence-based policy advocacy, and sustained engagement with government institutions, the organization advances practical solutions that enhance the quality of life for Delhi’s residents and strengthen democratic participation at the grassroots level.
In an exclusive interaction with The Interview World, Atul Goyal, President of URJA, offers a nuanced perspective on the spending patterns of Delhi’s RWAs and examines how community-based security can complement formal policing to reinforce the broader law-and-order framework. Furthermore, he explores how Delhi can draw valuable lessons from successful community institutions in Kerala and Maharashtra that actively contribute to neighbourhood safety. He also underscores the importance of robust accountability mechanisms to ensure transparency, efficiency, and measurable outcomes in the utilization of public funds. Most importantly, he articulates how the concept of “co-production of security” can foster safer, more resilient, and participatory communities across the capital. The following are the key insights from this thought-provoking conversation.
Q: URJA claims that Delhi’s RWAs spend between ₹800 crore and ₹1,200 crore annually on private security, CCTV systems, gates, and other safety measures. What evidence supports this estimate, and how was this figure arrived at?
A: Delhi has an estimated 8,000–10,000 Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs), including approximately 1,040 CGHS RWAs, 1,681 RWAs in unauthorized colonies, 3,000–4,000 RWAs in plotted colonies, and nearly 1,500 RWAs in DDA MIG and LIG housing complexes. However, these figures exclude multiple RWAs operating within the same locality, as well as Market Traders Associations, Industrial Area Associations, Institutional Area Associations, and numerous private establishments that independently employ security personnel. Consequently, the actual number of entities incurring security-related expenditure is significantly higher.
Assuming a conservative deployment of eight security guards per RWA, four during the day and four at night, and an average monthly salary of ₹15,000 per guard, each RWA spends approximately ₹1.2 lakh per month, or ₹14.4 lakh annually, on security personnel alone.
Based on an estimated 9,000 RWAs, the total annual expenditure on security guards amounts to approximately ₹1,296 crore. However, to maintain a conservative assessment, only two-thirds of this amount has been considered as the baseline estimate, resulting in an annual expenditure of nearly ₹800 crore.
Notably, this estimate excludes substantial additional investments in CCTV surveillance, boom barriers, access-control systems, electronic security equipment, maintenance, and other safety infrastructure. Therefore, the actual financial burden borne by citizens is considerably higher.
Q: You have proposed earmarking 2% of the ₹1 lakh crore Urban Local Bodies Fund, about ₹2,000 crore, for community policing. How would you convince critics who may view this as a subsidy for gated communities rather than an investment in public safety?
A: We seek government support to alleviate the growing financial burden borne by RWAs in maintaining neighbourhood security across Delhi. Currently, a significant proportion of security guards employed by RWAs lack professional training, standardized certification, and modern security skills. As a result, RWAs are compelled to spend substantial sums on security arrangements that often fall short of desired standards. Upgrading these services through proper training, identity verification, skill development, and regulatory oversight requires additional resources that most RWAs cannot mobilize independently.
At the same time, community-based security serves as an essential supplementary layer that strengthens the overall law-and-order ecosystem and supports the efforts of Delhi Police. Citizens already contribute hundreds of crores of rupees annually from their own pockets to secure their neighbourhoods. In this context, the proposed assistance is not a subsidy but a strategic public investment in community safety and crime prevention. Given the scale of the challenge, the proposed allocation is modest compared to the benefits it would generate.
The policy choice is clear. Under the existing system, citizens continue to bear the entire cost of neighbourhood security while security standards remain uneven and largely unregulated. In contrast, a structured RWA Security Support Scheme would enable the Government to provide financial assistance, professional training, identity verification, and robust accountability mechanisms. This approach would reduce the financial burden on residents, enhance the quality and professionalism of security services, and create a more secure urban environment. If public expenditure on roads, lighting, and other civic infrastructure is rightly viewed as an investment in public welfare, then targeted support for community security, backed by citizen participation, multiple layers of audit, and measurable outcomes, deserves similar recognition as an investment in public safety and social stability.
Q: Local community institutions in Kerala and Maharashtra have roles in neighbourhood safety. What lessons from those states do you believe can realistically be adapted to Delhi’s urban governance model?
A: Kerala and Maharashtra have successfully demonstrated how citizen participation can strengthen public safety by transforming residents into organized first responders. Delhi can adopt several elements of these models without any legislative changes. The city’s primary challenge is inadequate last-mile police visibility and community engagement. This is precisely where both states have achieved measurable success.
Accordingly, Delhi can establish Ward Safety Committees, introduce women-led neighbourhood patrols, maintain a Senior Citizen Safety Register, and create an RWA–Police Mitra Identity Card system to formalize citizen participation in local security. It can also provide supervised access to CCTV monitoring systems to improve surveillance and emergency response coordination.
However, Delhi must adapt these initiatives to its unique challenges. Unlike Kerala and Maharashtra, Delhi regularly faces extreme heat waves, major fire incidents, and severe waterlogging. Therefore, any community safety framework should integrate fire safety, heat-stroke response, disaster preparedness, and emergency management. By combining proven citizen-engagement models with Delhi-specific risk mitigation measures, the city can build a more resilient, responsive, and citizen-centric public safety ecosystem.
Q: Under your proposed ‘RWA Suraksha Sahyog Yojana,’ registered RWAs could receive grants of up to ₹5 lakh annually. What accountability mechanisms would be in place to ensure public funds are used transparently and effectively?
A: The proposed RWA Security Support Scheme should operate under a robust five-layer accountability framework designed to ensure transparency, efficiency, and measurable outcomes. First, only compliant and well-governed RWAs should qualify for financial assistance. Second, all expenditures should be processed through a fully digital system with geo-tagged records, photographs, and real-time documentation of assets and activities. Third, residents should conduct social audits, creating a powerful mechanism of community-based oversight. Fourth, Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), supported by independent third-party agencies, should undertake periodic financial and operational audits. Fifth, outcome audits should evaluate improvements in safety, security, and emergency preparedness at the neighbourhood and ward levels.
This model is particularly well suited to Delhi because the necessary technological infrastructure already exists through the MCD 311 platform and GIS-based mapping systems. A dedicated RWA module can be integrated with minimal additional cost. Moreover, while government agencies cannot continuously monitor 8,000–10,000 RWAs, residents can effectively perform this role through community vigilance and reporting.
The guiding principle is simple: public money must be accompanied by public data. When every expenditure and outcome is publicly visible, transparency becomes self-enforcing. Consequently, citizen oversight, digital monitoring, and independent audits can significantly reduce leakages while strengthening accountability, public trust, and service delivery.
Q: At the heart of your proposal is the idea of ‘co-production of security’ involving citizens, police, and local governments. Looking ahead five years, what measurable outcomes would convince you that this model has succeeded in making Delhi safer and more participatory?
A: If the principle of security co-production is genuinely effective, its success should be visible on Delhi’s streets within five years, not merely reflected in police records or administrative reports. Citizens should experience safer neighbourhoods, stronger community engagement, more responsive institutions, and measurable improvements in public safety outcomes. Therefore, the true test of the model lies in what people see, feel, and experience in their daily lives.
Accordingly, the Delhi Suraksha Scorecard 2031 should evaluate performance across four interconnected dimensions: safety, participation, governance, and financial value. Safety outcomes must determine whether citizens feel safer and whether preventable risks have declined. Participation outcomes should measure whether residents, particularly through RWAs, have become active partners rather than passive recipients of government services. At the same time, governance outcomes must assess whether the Police and Urban Local Bodies have adopted more collaborative, transparent, and responsive practices. Finally, financial outcomes should evaluate whether public expenditure has generated measurable public value rather than simply funding activities.
However, success must be judged by outcomes, not intentions. First, fire- and heat-related deaths should decline by at least 50 percent, as these risks are largely preventable through organized community preparedness and local action. Second, more than 2,000 RWAs should actively participate, ensuring that co-production evolves into a citywide movement rather than remaining confined to a handful of privileged neighbourhoods. Third, citizen trust in public institutions should increase by at least 30 points because safety is measured not only through crime statistics but also through public confidence.
Conversely, failure should be declared if public funds are spent without reducing preventable deaths, if the benefits accrue only to affluent RWAs, or if government agencies treat citizen-generated data as a threat rather than a strategic asset. In any of these scenarios, co-production would remain a slogan rather than a transformative model of urban governance and public safety.
