The pitfalls of mandatory FIRs

Image used for representational purposes. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto On August 5, the Supreme Court, in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reiterated that the police must register an FIR upon receiving any information about a missing ‘person’. The court clarified that the expression ‘person’ did not refer only to missing children but included every person. The Supreme Court in May issued certain directions which inter alia included setting up a special portal by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) dedicated to human trafficking, registration of an FIR without waiting for any preliminary enquiry or leaving it to the guardians or family of the missing person to first search for him/her, activating the anti-human trafficking units (AHTUs) of districts, restoring the recovered child to the rightful guardian in accordance with law and Aadhaar verification or issuance of an Aadhaar card.Also read | Procedure needed to look into complaints of missing persons: HCPresumption for childrenThe directions issued in G. Ganesh are no different from the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA) versus Union of India and Others in January 2013, in which the court was dealing only with ‘missing children’. The court then issued two directions. The first related to mandatory recording of FIR so that police authorities are activated in taking steps to trace the child. Second, the court asked each State to set up a Special Juvenile Police Unit at every police station in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007.In May 2013, when Madhya Pradesh expressed some doubt with respect to the provisions of Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS), which relates to information in cognisable cases, the court said that there will be an initial presumption of either abduction or trafficking, unless, in the investigation, the same is proved otherwise.Second, at least one specially trained police officer at each police station was directed to be designated as a Juvenile Welfare Officer as per Section 63 of the JJ Act, 2000. In case a missing child is not recovered within four months from the date of the FIR, the matter is to be forwarded to the AHTU.While, in the case of a missing child, the presumption of a cognisable offence to set the law in motion is understandable, as a child’s consent has no relevance in law, such a presumption may be problematic when an adult leaves the house of his or her own volition.Adults have agencyIt is a matter of common knowledge that many adults leave their homes to live together as partners or get married without the consent of their parents. But in some cases, couples have been killed (in the name of family honour) after being found, with or without the assistance of the police.It is also undisputed that initially every such case is reported as a missing-person case. If an FIR is registered in every case, it will become the duty of the police to trace such couples or an adult and hand them over to their parents. A person may leave information indicating his or her willingness before leaving, but the police would still trace them to verify it. Thus, consenting couples may still face unnecessary police investigation.The case of G. Ganesh involved a one-year-and-10-month-old child who went missing from Chennai in 2011, following which a ‘child missing’ case was registered. The case was transferred first to the Central Crime Branch and then to a Special Investigation Team, but the child remained untraced for 14 years. The petitioner alleged that the MHA guidelines issued in June 2013 for missing children were not followed and that the case was not transferred to the AHTU after four months. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition in March 2025, holding that the police had made all efforts to trace the child and that the 2013 guidelines were not applicable in 2011.There was no occasion for the Supreme Court to suo motu take up the issue of missing adults. The May judgment also does not indicate that the States were heard on the issue. While the court’s intention to deal firmly with human trafficking cannot be doubted, not allowing even a small window for the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry is difficult to fathom. A week or fortnight could allow the police to filter cases where there is credible information that the person reported missing was neither abducted nor trafficked. A blanket presumption of kidnapping or trafficking in every case of a missing adult, without any evidence, is against the spirit of the statute. To that extent, the court needs to review its direction mandating the registration of an FIR.R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer Published - September 28, 2026 12:42 am IST