Every Missing Person Deserves Immediate FIR, Age And Gender No Bar: Supreme Court Slams States' Interpretation

The Supreme Court has slammed several States for giving a narrow, self-serving reading to its earlier order mandating FIR registration in missing persons cases, calling the interpretation a "deliberate and mala fide bogey," and has warned of contempt action against States and Union Territories found non-compliant.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan is monitoring the issue in a batch of matters connected to an SLP by G. Ganesh against Tamil Nadu, assisted by a Court-appointed Committee headed by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta and coordinated by Mr. S.D. Sanjay.

The Court observed that some States have now sought to interpret it's earlier order selectively. When the matter returned on August 5, the Court learned that several States believed "person" in the May 22 direction meant only missing children, not adults.

"We are shocked to learn that some of the States are under the impression that the expression 'person' refers only to children and does not include adults. We find this to be a deliberate and mala fide bogey raised by such States," it recorded, clarifying that "person" meant every person, "irrespective of age or gender."

The Court directed that non-compliant States face contempt notices to their Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, both required to appear in person and file show-cause affidavits. It made a specific example of the Union Territory of Ladakh, which had filed no response whatsoever, directing a personally affirmed affidavit from its Chief Secretary and Director General of Police explaining the lapse.

The Court also noted a Committee reshuffle, Mr. Sanjay, who held the office earlier as Additional Solicitor General, now holds office as Advocate General for Bihar, and Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG, has taken over for the Union and joined the Committee, alongside Senior Advocates H.S. Phoolka and Aparna Bhat, and Dr. Nair. Two of the proposed six Zonal Consultation Meetings have been held, with a third on August 8.

Background

The controversy traces back to the Court's order of May 22, 2026, directing that all police stations "immediately register an FIR the moment any information reaches them with regard to any person missing," without waiting for a preliminary enquiry or leaving the search to the family. Even if the missing person is traced within 24 hours, the FIR need not go to the jurisdictional court, though police must still be activated instantly, since the earliest hours after a person goes missing are the "golden hours" for safe recovery. FIRs must mandatorily invoke provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on kidnapping, abduction and trafficking, and suspected trafficking cases must move to specialised units without waiting for the usual four-month period.

The order also directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to build an all-India grid connecting every police station, with a dedicated portal on human trafficking integrated with Mission Vatsalya and the CCTNS database, and asked District Child Protection Units and Child Welfare Committees to act on priority whenever any missing person is eventually recovered or rescued.

The order went further, issuing a mandamus to the Union and all States and Union Territories to make Anti Human Trafficking Units fully functional within four weeks, after Dr. P.M. Nair, a retired IPS officer and Committee member, told the Court that many such units existed only on paper. It also directed that recovered persons be restored to their families without delay unless the family was complicit in trafficking, mandated Aadhaar verification for every recovered person, and asked States to designate dedicated Nodal Officers of "proven integrity and competence," after finding existing officers were appointed casually and often skipped Committee meetings altogether.

The matter is listed next for hearing on October 5, 2026.

Case Title: G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Date of Order: August 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan