The court emphasized the necessity for prompt state action in cases involving missing persons, particularly vulnerable individuals.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court because her mother, who is 80 years in age, has gone missing without a trace.

2. The anguish and pathos of the petitioner certainly touched our hearts; and we issued several orders, in an effort to ensure that necessary action is initiated and completed.

3. On 03.07.2025, when this matter had been earlier considered, a report was made available to us by the learned Government Pleader from the Investigation Officer, which merely said that the “alleged detenue” had not been traced.

4. Thereafter, on 16.07.2025, the same submission was made; but, on 30.07.2025, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Investigation Team had been expanded with five more officers. We, therefore, gave some more time to the Investigation Team.

5. However, nothing happened on 13.08.2025; and thereafter, we passed an order on 18.08.2025, to the following effect:

“The third respondent was present in person today. She said that the alleged detenue went out as usual to purchase tapioca from her relative, but that she did not return; consequent to which she and the alleged detenue's son filed a complaint before the police on the very next day.

Sri.Sunil Nath – learned Government Pleader, affirmed that a complaint has been received from the third respondent. He, however, sought for a few more days' time collate the information of the investigation until now.

List, therefore, on 22.08.2025.”

6. Subsequently, on 07.11.2025, not much headway was reported; and therefore, on the next posting, namely

22.01.2026, we passed the following detailed order:

“The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that her 80 year old mother has gone missing without a trace from 28.04.2025.

2. We took the matter with great importance, as is warranted because the ‘alleged detenue’ is an octogenarian; and hence we were in favour of a team of Police Officers being constituted, which the learned Government Pleader – Sri.Sunil Nath, says has been done. Unfortunately, however, the learned Government Pleader says that the ‘alleged detenue’ is yet to be traced, though the Police is making every effort necessary.

3. We have been considering this matter consistently for the last more than 6 months, when the same submission as afore was made by the learned Government Pleader. We are, therefore, of the firm view that this is a case which warrants the personal attention of the State Police Chief, for which, we implead the State Police Chief of Kerala, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695010, as an additional respondent, suo motu. The Registry will make consequential incorporations.

4. We direct the additional respondent – State Police Chief to immediately bestow his personal attention to this issue and constitute a team of Officers under his command, or to be led by an officer of his choice not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. This shall be done within the next posting date and reported to us.

Post on 29.01.2026.”

7. This was followed by the next order, dated

04.02.2026, which is as under:

“Pursuant to our order dated 22.01.2026, Sri.B.S.Syamanthak - learned Government Pleader, has placed on record the order of the State Police Chief dated 29.01.2026, constituting a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to trace out the ‘alleged detenue’.

2. We notice that the head of the team is an Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. We, consequently, direct the ‘SIT’ to initiate a thorough search for the ‘alleged detenue’ and file a report before this Court within a period of two weeks.

4. List for further consideration on 18.02.2026.

Needless to say, if the ‘alleged detenue’ has been traced even before the aforesaid date, it will be up to the