Immediate FIR Must Be Registered For Every Missing Person, Irrespective Of Age Or Gender: Supreme Court Warns States

The Supreme Court recently clarified that its direction requiring police to immediately register an FIR on receiving information about a missing person applies to every person, irrespective of age or gender. The Court said the word "person" in its earlier order cannot be understood as referring only to children and warned that States and Union Territories that failed to comply with the direction could face contempt proceedings.A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan passed the direction while reviewing compliance with its earlier orders in proceedings concerning measures to prevent human trafficking and to trace missing persons. The Court noted that under its order dated May 22, 2026, all States had been directed to register an FIR upon receiving information regarding any missing person. However, the Court was informed that some States were proceeding on the understanding that the word “person” in the earlier order referred only to children. .desktop-ad { display: block; } .mobile-ad { display: none; } @media (max-width: 767px) { .desktop-ad { display: none; } .mobile-ad { display: block; } } .ad_unit_wrapper { text-align: center; margin-top: 10px; } .insidecontent-ad-img { width: 728px; height: 220px; max-width: 100%; object-fit: cover; display: block; margin: 0 auto; } @media only screen and (max-width: 768px) { .insidecontent-ad-img { width: 100%; height: auto; } } The Court rejected this interpretation, calling it a "deliberate and mala fide bogey". The Court clarified that "person" means every person, irrespective of age or gender. “Today, 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. The language of our earlier order is clear and unambiguous. The expression “person” means every person, irrespective of age or gender”, the Court observed.The Court said that if any State or Union Territory had failed to comply with the earlier order, notice of contempt would be issued to the concerned Chief Secretary and DGP. They would have to remain personally present before the Court and file show-cause affidavits explaining why they should not be proceeded against and punished for deliberate defiance and non-compliance with the Court's orders.Under the May 22 order, the Court had directed every police station to immediately register an FIR as soon as information was received that any person was missing. The police were specifically barred from waiting for a preliminary enquiry or leaving it to the family or guardians to first search for the missing person. The Court had stated that the police machinery must be activated immediately at its highest level to trace the missing person. It had observed that the initial few hours after a person goes missing are the “golden hours” during which the chances of safe recovery are at the maximum.The Court had directed that the FIR contain the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other applicable statutory provisions relating to kidnapping, abduction or trafficking of a person or child. The Court had further directed that if the investigating agency had sufficient reason to believe that a case involved trafficking, it should be transferred to a specialised unit dealing with human trafficking, kidnapping, abduction and allied offences without waiting for the expiry of the four-month period.The Court had also directed the Union Government, States and Union Territories to ensure that all AHTUs became fully functional and operational within four weeks. The Court had also directed that a person recovered or rescued should be restored to their family without delay after verification that the person was being restored to the rightful guardian. Where the person had been trafficked with the involvement or connivance of the family or guardians, however, the victim was not to be restored to that family and responsibility for care and protection was to vest in the State authorities, including Child Welfare Committees. The Court had additionally directed that every recovered or rescued missing person be taken immediately for Aadhaar verification or issuance of an Aadhaar Card, as the case may be, and had asked authorities to examine the feasibility of issuing Aadhaar Cards at the place of birth itself, subject to the voluntary consent of parents or guardians.In the latest order dated August 5, the Court also noted that several States and Union Territories had not filed affidavits reporting compliance with its earlier directions. It held that they were prima facie in contempt.The Court directed that contempt notices be issued to the Chief Secretaries and DGPs of the concerned States and Union Territories....