Back
Supreme Court clarifies missing person FIR rule applies to adults too, warns States of contempt
In a stern order delivered on
, the
clarified that its earlier directive requiring FIR registration for missing persons applies to
all individuals regardless of age or gender
—not just children. A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan expressed shock at States misinterpreting the term "person," calling it a
"deliberate and
bogey."
The Court warned that non-compliant States would face contempt proceedings.
The Bogey of Misreading "Person"
The genesis lies in the Court's earlier order of , which mandated that all States register an FIR upon receiving any information about a missing person. Several States, however, understood this to apply only to minors—a narrow reading the Bench categorically rejected.
"We find this to be a deliberate andbogey raised by such States. The language of our earlier order is clear and unambiguous. The expression 'person' means every person, irrespective of age or gender."
The Court's frustration was palpable, underscoring that non-compliance would trigger contempt notices against Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police, who must personally appear before the Court.
Committee’s Progress and a New Member
The Court recorded that substantial progress had been made by the Committee constituted to oversee implementation. Two Zonal Consultation Meetings have already taken place, with a third scheduled for . Three more meetings are to follow, likely taking about a month.
, formerly Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and now Advocate General for Bihar, was requested to continue as Convenor/Coordinator. Simultaneously, , the current Additional Solicitor General, will represent the Union of India and join the Committee as a member—a structural adjustment to ensure continuity.
Contempt Notices for the Defiant
The Bench also took a dim view of the Union Territory of Ladakh's failure to file any response, as reflected in the Office Report. The Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of Ladakh were directed to file personally affirmed affidavits explaining their non-compliance.
Beyond Ladakh, all States/Union Territories that have not filed affidavits despite earlier directions are in contempt. The Court issued contempt notices to the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police of these entities, requiring them to remain personally present and show cause.
A Push for Portal Integration
Another significant direction concerned the integration of all relevant portals across the country. The Court asked to communicate its concern to concerned agencies, setting a six-week deadline for completing the integration exercise. This move aims to streamline missing person reporting and tracking nationally.
What Lies Ahead
The Court also welcomed suggestions from members of the Bar, asking the Committee to receive and consider them. The matter has been listed for further hearing on at 2:00 p.m.
This order reinforces the Supreme Court's vigilance in ensuring that its directives are implemented in letter and spirit, and sends an unequivocal message that failure to comply will attract serious consequences, including contempt proceedings against senior officials.
