Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a father seeking action on his missing person complaint about his son, the Division Bench of Babita Rani and Abdul Moin, JJ., rebuked the State authorities for inaction on 1.08 lakh missing persons cases registered since 2024 and directed the registration of the present petition as a public interest litigation (“PIL”).
Background
The petitioner’s son, approximately 32 years old, had gone missing, prompting the petitioner to file a missing person report on 15-07-2024. When no action was taken by the authorities to address his grievance, he filed the instant petition on 27-11-2025.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court passed an order dated 01-12-2025 directing the Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”) to file an affidavit indicating the progress made in the matter. Accordingly, the Commissioner filed an affidavit.
On 17-12-2025, upon perusal of the affidavit, the Court stated that it was apparent that it was only when the Court took cognizance of a person having gone missing that the official machinery got into motion by lodging the FIR and by indicating the efforts being made to trace out the missing person. Thus, the efforts started approximately one and a half years after lodging of the missing complaint by the petitioner.
Upon the State being asked as to how the said complaints about missing persons are dealt with, the Court was informed that the complaints are uploaded on the website and they continue to remain on the website till some impetus is given either by an order of a Court or otherwise.
Noting this, the Court rebuked the State’s lackadaisical attitude, stating that it was only via the present petition that the situation had come to the notice of the Court. The Court remarked that this was not expected from a welfare State, whereby the citizen has to approach the highest Court of the State to set in motion an action which was required to be done by the authorities themselves on their own accord, more particularly when the missing complaint report admittedly has been uploaded on the official website of the State authorities.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home) to file an affidavit indicating:
-
The action taken in pursuance of the missing complaint report lodged by the petitioner, and in pursuance of which an FIR had been lodged
-
How many such missing complaint reports have been uploaded on the National Crime Records Bureau (“NCRB”) website since 01-01-2024, and how many of those missing complaint reports have been redressed/ persons traced out
-
How the said missing complaints are dealt with by the authorities once the said complaint is uploaded on the NCRB website
-
whether any information is sent to the complainant regarding the status of the said missing complaint report, and if so, the frequency with which any information is sent to the complainant.
Accordingly, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) filed an affidavit.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that the affidavit did not inspire much confidence as it indicated that it was only when the Court took cognizance of the petition and required the Commissioner to file the personal affidavit that the authorities acted, i.e., on 02-12-2025, after the FIR was lodged upon a fresh application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the action to trace out the missing person started.
The Court took note of the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Commissionerate, Lucknow, to the Commissioner, annexed in the affidavit, which indicated that the mobile phone of the petitioner’s son was recovered on 21-11-2024. However, the efforts to trace out the missing person only started after lodging the FIR on 02-12-2025.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court remarked that a person who went missing in July 2024 and a period of more than one and a half years lapsed, but still there was no trace of him, and the personal affidavit also indicated that the efforts to find him started in December 2025, “which itself speaks volumes about the working of the authorities.”
“Police have started investigating the matter after almost one and a half years of the person having gone missing, which indicates the total lack of seriousness with which the authorities take the missing complaints that are lodged by the residents of Uttar Pradesh.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that as per the affidavit, from 01-01-2024 to 18-01-2026, around 1,08,300 missing person complaints were registered and action to find the missing persons was taken in 9,700 cases.
“The said data is shocking, and we are aghast at the attitude of the authorities in addressing the complaints pertaining to missing persons, which obviously requires a sense of urgency on the part of the authorities.”
Regarding the contention that the data was incomplete, the Court noted that the Additional Chief Secretary, in his personal affidavit, had specifically indicated that the data was available on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (“CCTNS”). The same data was annexed with the affidavit. Thus, the Court held that the personal affidavit filed by a senior officer of the State, especially the Home Department, must obviously contain the correct data.
“The matter now concerns more than one person having gone missing; it now concerns the entire State, and the data itself indicates a prima facie lackadaisical attitude on the part of the authorities in tracing out the missing persons.”
The Court further noted that the alarming aspect was that, as per the circular dated 20-06-2025 issued by the Director General of Police, the CCTV footage shall be preserved for two to two and a half months. Thus, if the authorities do not act with alacrity on a missing person report, they would not have any CCTV data to fall back on, which would make tracing a missing person virtually impossible, as has happened in the instant case and also reflected in the CCTNS data.
Considering the aforesaid, the Court opined that a larger public interest was now involved in the matter and directed the instant writ petition to be registered as a PIL and be named as “In re- Missing persons in the State” and listed before the appropriate Court on 05-02-2026.
In the meantime, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a reply to the personal affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary and make a request to the Court concerned for taking up the matter out of turn, considering the large public interest.
[Vikrama Prasad v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11291 of 2025, decided on 29-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Onkar Pandey, Anand Kumar Singh
For the respondent: Government Advocate