Supreme Court Clarifies FIR Mandate for Missing Persons
The Supreme Court of India has unequivocally stated that its directive for the immediate registration of first information reports (FIRs) upon receiving information about a missing person pertains to all individuals, regardless of their age or gender. This clarification was made in the case G Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Clarification and Warning Issued to States
In an order issued on August 5, a Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan addressed the misunderstanding by some States, which interpreted the term ‘person’ in the Court’s earlier order as referring only to children. The Court expressed its disappointment, stating, “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.”
Contempt Notices for Non-Compliance
The Bench referred to its previous May 22 directive, instructing States to file an FIR upon receiving information about any missing individual. It cautioned that States or Union Territories (UTs) failing to adhere to this mandate may face contempt proceedings. Consequently, contempt notices have been issued to the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police (DGPs) of non-compliant regions. These officials are required to appear in person to justify why they should not face contempt charges.
Background of the Case
This case originated from a petition filed by G Ganesh, whose minor daughter disappeared from Chennai in 2011. Despite FIR registration and investigations by various agencies, the child remained missing, leading to the closure of the case as undetectable. After the Madras High Court refused to intervene, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The Court, concerned about systemic issues in handling missing children’s cases, broadened its scope to address the wider problem of missing children and child trafficking nationwide.
Steps Taken by the Supreme Court
On May 22, the Court issued multiple directives aimed at enhancing the mechanisms for locating missing persons and combating child trafficking. In its August 5 order, the Court noted the lack of response from the Union Territory of Ladakh and demanded affidavits explaining the non-compliance from its Chief Secretary and DGP.
More Read
Ongoing Efforts and Next Steps
The Bench was informed of two zonal consultation meetings that had already occurred, with a third meeting planned for August 8 and three more proposed. The Court has instructed that the integration of all relevant portals across the country should be completed within six weeks. Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave has been tasked with conveying the Court’s concerns to the relevant agencies.
A committee aiding the Court is led by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, with Senior Advocate SD Sanjay as Convenor/Coordinator. Sanjay, now the Advocate General for Bihar, will continue in this role, and ASG Dave has been added to the committee to represent the Union government. The next hearing is scheduled for October 5.
