Supreme Court’s Mandatory FIR for Every Missing Person Stretches a Child-Protection Rule to Adults

The news

New Delhi. Former IPS officer R.K. Vij, writing in The Hindu on Monday, September 28, argues that the Supreme Court’s recent directions on missing persons need review in the case of adults. On August 5, the Court in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reiterated that the police must register a First Information Report (FIR) — the formal record that sets a criminal investigation in motion — on receiving any information about a missing ‘person’, clarifying that the word covers every person, not only children. The Court had in May issued directions that included a special portal on human trafficking by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA); registration of an FIR without waiting for a preliminary enquiry or leaving it to the family to first search; activation of the anti-human-trafficking units (AHTUs) of districts; and restoring a recovered child to the rightful guardian with Aadhaar verification or issue of an Aadhaar card. Vij notes that these mirror Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (January 2013), which dealt only with missing children. There, the Court ordered mandatory FIRs so that police were activated to trace the child, and asked each State to set up a Special Juvenile Police Unit at every police station under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. In May 2013, when Madhya Pradesh raised doubts under Section 154 of the CrPC (now Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS), the Court said there would be an initial presumption of abduction or trafficking unless investigation proved otherwise; at least one trained officer at each station was to be a Juvenile Welfare Officer under Section 63 of the JJ Act, 2000; and a child not recovered within four months was to be referred to the AHTU. G. Ganesh concerned a child of one year and ten months missing from Chennai since 2011 and untraced for 14 years; the Madras High Court had dismissed the petition in March 2025, holding that the MHA’s June 2013 guidelines did not apply to 2011. Vij argues that a presumption of a cognisable offence is sound for children, whose consent has no legal relevance, but problematic for adults who leave home of their own will, including couples who marry without parental consent; some such couples, he writes, have been killed in the name of family honour after being traced. He adds that the judgment does not show that States were heard, and that a week or fortnight of enquiry would let police filter out cases with credible information that the person was neither abducted nor trafficked. The syllabus link is GS2 on vulnerable sections and GS3 on internal security and policing.

Static syllabus linkage

1. Lalita Kumari made FIR registration a duty, with narrow exceptions. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, a five-judge Constitution Bench held in November 2013 (reported in 2014) that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognisable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a case. A preliminary inquiry was permitted only to ascertain whether a cognisable offence is disclosed, in categories such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption and cases with abnormal delay, and was to be completed within seven days. Failure to register an FIR invites action against the officer. The judgment rests on the victim’s right to access justice under Article 21.
2. Section 173 of the BNSS carries over the FIR duty with new features. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in force since July 1, 2024, replaced the CrPC, and its Section 173 replaces Section 154. It allows information about a cognisable offence to be given at any police station irrespective of where the offence occurred, which is the ‘zero FIR’, and by electronic communication, which must be signed by the informant within three days. It also allows a preliminary enquiry, with the permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, for offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, to be completed within 14 days. The informant can approach the Superintendent of Police if the station refuses to register.
3. Trafficking is an offence under the BNS and prohibited by Article 23. Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labour, and makes contravention punishable by law. Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 370 of the IPC, defines trafficking as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or receiving a person by threat, force, coercion, fraud, abuse of power or inducement for exploitation, and states that the victim’s consent is immaterial. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 deals with trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation. Anti-human-trafficking units are district-level police units supported by the MHA to investigate trafficking.
4. The Juvenile Justice framework designates police officers for children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 required Special Juvenile Police Units and a designated juvenile or child welfare officer in each police station. The 2000 Act was replaced by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which continues the Special Juvenile Police Unit and the Child Welfare Police Officer. The courts have consistently held that a minor’s consent to leave home is legally irrelevant, which is why the presumption of an offence is justified for children.

Why UPSC loves this

1. Police reform and vulnerable groups are joint GS2-GS3 themes. The syllabus names ‘mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections’ in GS2 and ‘internal security’ and police in GS3. Mains has asked about police reforms and about trafficking. The new criminal laws of 2023 are now a certain source of Prelims questions on changed section numbers.
2. Prelims will test the new codes against the old. Expect statements on which BNSS section replaces Section 154 CrPC, the zero FIR and e-FIR, the BNS section on trafficking, and the Lalita Kumari rule. Article 23’s prohibition of trafficking is a standard question.

Analysis

1. A presumption that fits children does not fit adults. For a child, the law assumes that leaving home is never a free choice, so a missing child is presumptively a victim, and an FIR is the right response. For an adult, leaving home is a lawful exercise of personal liberty under Article 21, including the choice of a partner, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly protected. An automatic FIR presuming kidnapping turns a lawful choice into a crime scene, and gives the police a duty to find and return an adult who may not want to be found. Vij’s point about honour killings shows that the harm can be lethal, not merely inconvenient.
2. The counter-view: trafficking of adults, especially women, is real. Many trafficked adults are lured with job or marriage promises and appear, at first, to have left voluntarily. A delay of a week or fortnight may be the window in which a victim is moved across State lines. Mandatory FIRs create a record, activate AHTUs and the portal, and prevent police from brushing off families from poor backgrounds, which was the original problem. The Court’s strictness responds to real police indifference.
3. The BNSS already offers the middle path Vij asks for. Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows a time-bound preliminary enquiry for certain offences, and Lalita Kumari allowed one to check whether a cognisable offence is disclosed. A tailored rule for adults could require an immediate entry and search, and an FIR within a short period unless there is credible information — a message, a call, a statement — that the adult left voluntarily. Where the adult is found and states that they left by choice, police should record it before a magistrate and not hand them to family. This protects both the trafficking victim and the eloping adult.
4. Directions without hearing the States risk poor implementation. Vij notes the May judgment does not indicate that the States were heard. Policing is a State subject under Entry 2 of List II, and directions that load every station with FIRs for every missing adult will affect crime statistics, workloads and case closure. When the Court writes quasi-legislative guidelines, hearing the implementers improves both legitimacy and design. The G. Ganesh facts — a child untraced for 14 years — also show that the gap is often in follow-through, not in registration.

Administrator's brainstorm