Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, while dealing with a deeply concerning case highlighting administrative apathy towards missing persons, passed strong directions against the State authorities for their failure to act with promptitude and sensitivity. The case arose from a writ petition filed by a grieving father whose 32-year-old son went missing in July 2024. Despite lodging a missing person report on 17.07.2024 and uploading the complaint on the official State portal, no effective steps were taken by the police machinery for more than a year. Left with no alternative remedy and witnessing complete inaction on the part of the authorities, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court on 27.11.2025 seeking judicial intervention. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani, which immediately expressed serious concern over the disappearance of a person from the State capital and the apparent indifference of the police administration. The Court noted that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India imposes a corresponding duty on the State to act swiftly and responsibly in cases of missing persons, especially when complaints are formally lodged and recorded on official platforms.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that his son had gone missing in July 2024 under circumstances that required urgent police intervention. He submitted that immediately upon realizing that his son could not be traced, he approached the concerned police authorities and lodged a missing person complaint, which was also uploaded on the official missing persons portal maintained by the State. Despite repeated follow-ups, visits to police stations, and representations to higher authorities, no meaningful steps were taken to trace his son. The petitioner argued that the prolonged inaction amounted to a gross violation of his son’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty, as well as his own right to seek effective redress from State institutions. It was emphasized that the delay of more than one and a half years in even registering an FIR demonstrated a complete breakdown of administrative responsibility. The petitioner further submitted that the State’s failure was not merely procedural but systemic, reflecting a casual and insensitive approach towards missing persons, particularly those belonging to ordinary families without political or social influence. The petitioner urged the Court to not only ensure serious efforts in his son’s case but also to examine the larger issue of how missing persons’ complaints are handled across the State, so that similarly placed citizens are not forced to approach constitutional courts for basic administrative action.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
On behalf of the State, the Additional Government Advocate sought to explain the steps taken by the police after the Court’s intervention. It was submitted that subsequent to the Court’s initial order, an FIR had been registered and efforts were being made to trace the missing person. The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, filed a personal affidavit indicating certain actions undertaken, including inquiries and coordination with other agencies. However, when queried by the Court regarding the general mechanism for dealing with missing persons’ complaints uploaded on the State portal, the Additional Government Advocate made a startling submission that such complaints are typically acted upon only after orders are passed by the Court. The State attempted to justify delays by citing procedural constraints and the volume of complaints, contending that the police machinery functions within established systems and limitations. It was also argued that missing persons’ cases often involve complexities that require time and coordination among various departments, and therefore delays, though unfortunate, are sometimes unavoidable.
Court’s Observations:
The Allahabad High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the explanation offered by the State and the contents of the personal affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow. The Bench noted that it was only after the Court took cognizance of the matter on 01.12.2025 that the official machinery was set in motion, leading to the belated lodging of an FIR and initiation of investigative efforts. The Court observed that the missing person had disappeared in July 2024, yet serious efforts to trace him began approximately one and a half years later, which was wholly unacceptable. The Bench recorded that such conduct reflects a lackadaisical and insensitive attitude on the part of State authorities, particularly in matters involving human life and liberty. The Court took serious note of the submission that missing persons’ complaints uploaded on the official portal are acted upon only after judicial intervention, terming it an alarming admission. It categorically observed that this approach is completely inconsistent with the concept of a welfare State, where authorities are expected to act suo motu upon receiving complaints, especially when such complaints relate to missing persons and potential threats to life. The Court emphasized that citizens should not be compelled to approach the highest constitutional court of the State merely to trigger basic administrative action that the authorities are duty-bound to perform on their own. The Bench underscored that the existence of an official portal for missing persons would be rendered meaningless if complaints uploaded therein are ignored until a court issues directions. Such a practice, the Court observed, erodes public trust in governance and undermines the rule of law.
Judgment and Directions:
In view of the seriousness of the matter and the unsatisfactory response from the police administration, the Allahabad High Court passed stringent directions aimed at ensuring accountability at the highest level. The Court ordered the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file his personal affidavit in the matter. The affidavit is required to detail the specific actions taken in the case of the petitioner’s missing son, including the present status of the inquiry and efforts made to trace him. Additionally, the Court directed the Principal Secretary to disclose comprehensive data regarding missing persons’ complaints across the State, specifically indicating how many complaints have been uploaded on the official portal after 1st January 2024 and how many missing persons have been successfully traced. The Court further required the Principal Secretary to clearly explain the standard operating procedure followed by the State authorities once a missing person complaint is uploaded on the portal, including timelines, responsibility of officers, and mechanisms for monitoring progress. By directing the highest administrative authority in the Home Department to personally respond, the Court sent a strong message that issues concerning missing persons cannot be treated casually and must receive immediate and sustained attention. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 29th January 2026, by which time the Court expects full disclosure and concrete accountability from the State.