Missing Person Presumed Dead Only After 7 Years, Not From Date of Disappearance: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a person who goes missing cannot be treated as dead from the date of disappearance but only after the lapse of seven years, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale said that the question of the date or time of the death of a person must be determined on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence, and not on mere assumption or presumption. 

Court allowed the appeal filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) against the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court’s order that had directed it to grant a compassionate appointment to one Shubham Bawankule, son of missing employee Gulab Mahagu Bawankule.

Gulab, an NMC employee, went missing on September 1, 2012. The High Court, in its July 18, 2024 order, had directed the NMC to issue an appointment order to Shubham by treating that same day as the date of his father’s death. Challenging this, the civic body argued that such an interpretation was contrary to law, as civil death can only be presumed after seven years of a person being unheard of.

The corporation further submitted that during the seven-year period, Gulab was treated as being in service until he retired on January 31, 2015. The family, it said, had received all retiral dues amounting to Rs. 6.49 lakh and was drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 12,000, indicating that they had accepted the retirement and could not now claim a compassionate appointment.

Shubham’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, had passed a decree on January 11, 2022, declaring Gulab to be dead, and this declaration should relate back to the date of disappearance in 2012.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the decree merely recorded the fact of disappearance and did not specify any date of death.

Referring to its earlier decision in LIC v. Anuradha (2004) 10 SCC 131, the bench reiterated that in cases of civil death, the presumption of death arises only after the expiry of seven years from the date of disappearance unless there is evidence to establish a specific earlier date. “The burden to prove the date or time of death lies upon the person making such an assertion,” the court noted.

The bench concluded that since there was no proof of death prior to September 1, 2019, the date marking seven years from Gulab’s disappearance, he would be presumed to have died only thereafter. It also found that the High Court had committed a “manifest error” in directly ordering a compassionate appointment rather than directing the authorities to merely consider the case as per applicable norms.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court, however, left a window open for Shubham, permitting the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to consider his case for any suitable appointment independent of compassionate grounds, with age relaxation, if permissible under law.

“The father of the respondent would be deemed to have died a civil death upon expiry of seven years from the date he went missing, i.e., September 1, 2019. Since the family accepted his retirement and pension benefits, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot stand,” the bench held.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: The Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation & Ors Vs Lalita & Ors

Judgment: October 29, 2025

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale