Introduction:

In the case titled Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Others bearing Writ Petition No. WP 30006/2024, the Karnataka High Court expressed deep concern over the alarming manner in which missing persons cases are handled by the State police machinery and directed the Government of Karnataka to submit comprehensive statistics on missing persons from 2020 to 2025. The petitioner, Mahesh, approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention, alleging that despite lodging a complaint regarding the missing status of one Kumar, the authorities had failed to conduct an effective, detailed, and diligent investigation. He urged the court to compel the respondents to trace the missing individual and file an accurate status report outlining the progress of the investigation.

Arguments:

The petitioner contended that the police took an inordinate delay in even registering his complaint and thereafter displayed utter negligence, apathy, and procedural indifference toward the case. According to him, it was not merely a matter of one missing person; rather, it reflected a systemic failure where missing persons cases are treated casually, without any seriousness or urgency, thereby violating fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He further argued that the right to life includes the right to security, dignity, and protection of individuals, and when the State fails to investigate missing cases, it directly undermines constitutional guarantees. The petitioner submitted that his repeated approaches to police authorities yielded no tangible results and that the police merely performed eyewash investigations without real or meaningful attempts to trace Kumar. He asserted that the issue of missing persons is grave, especially when women, children, and other vulnerable categories are involved, and sought the court’s direction to ensure accountability, rigour, and procedural compliance in such investigations.

On the other hand, the State Government, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), opposed the allegations and defended the police action. The Government admitted that the complaint was indeed registered after a lapse of one year but asserted that despite the delay, the police had undertaken every possible effort to trace the missing individual. The Government counsel submitted that officers were burdened with a large volume of cases and administrative duties, making it challenging to dedicate extensive manpower and resources to each missing complaint. The AGA highlighted that missing person cases often involve complexities such as deliberate absconding, interstate movement, lack of digital trails, and situations where the missing individuals leave voluntarily without informing families, making investigations time-consuming and unpredictable. Further, the Government argued that the police require cooperation from complainants and the general public, and that in many cases, the necessary leads or clues are unavailable. The counsel maintained that continuous follow-ups are conducted and that the State is making genuine attempts to improve its machinery but cannot be held liable for circumstances beyond its control. The State prayed that the writ petition be dismissed, contending there was no failure of duty and that the petitioner’s allegations were exaggerated and unfounded.

Judgement:

However, Justice Suraj Govindaraj was not convinced by the State’s justification. Displaying visible dissatisfaction, the Court rebuked the existing state of affairs and said that missing persons cases cannot be treated trivially or mechanically. The Court observed that “Nothing is happening in the missing persons case, we don’t know, close the case. This is a serious issue, children missing, no action, missing person issue is a big matter.” The Bench expressed shock at the absence of seriousness and systematic tracking and noted that the problem was not restricted to isolated instances but reflected a pattern of bureaucratic lethargy. The Court stated that when women, girls, and children go missing, the consequences are grave, and the silence of the police only aggravates trauma for the families who keep waiting endlessly for closure. The Bench pointed out that missing persons cases often intersect with multifaceted crimes such as human trafficking, organ trade, abduction, sexual exploitation, forced labour, and domestic servitude; thus, laxity in such matters is nothing short of dereliction of duty. Justice Govindaraj indicated that the State’s contention of overburdened officers was not a legally acceptable excuse and that the State machinery must be strengthened if the magnitude of cases demands more manpower, technology, and forensic infrastructure. The Court stressed that fundamental rights of citizens cannot be subordinated merely because the police lack manpower or efficiency.

Taking cognizance of the lack of data transparency, the Court directed the Government of Karnataka to submit, within one week, detailed statistics category-wise — men, women, boy children, girl children, elderly individuals, and if possible, segregated by age groups — for all missing persons complaints received between 2020 and 2025. The Court further ordered the State to furnish information on how many of these cases were investigated, how many persons were traced, how many remain untraced, and the current status of pending investigations. It also directed that any supplementary data related to missing complaints must be placed on record. By issuing such directions, the Court emphasized that administrative accountability is indispensable and that the judiciary cannot permit systemic neglect in matters involving disappearance of individuals. The High Court made it clear that missing persons investigations are not mere procedural formalities but matters directly affecting public safety, public confidence, and constitutional rights. The Bench reiterated that failure to trace missing persons, especially minors and women, may lead to disastrous repercussions and irreparable social harm. Therefore, the Court insisted that the police must start treating missing cases as urgent, time-sensitive, and human rights–centric rather than clerical registration exercises.

In essence, the Karnataka High Court has attempted to set a precedent by turning missing persons investigations into a metric of governance accountability rather than a mere law-and-order formality. This judicial intervention stands as a reminder that missing persons are not files to be archived but human beings whose fate remains unknown, and that each missing individual represents a family waiting for answers, hope, and closure. The matter has now been listed for hearing next week, wherein the State must comply with the directions and place the required statistics on record. The Court’s firm tone and binding directions indicate that the era of complacency in missing persons investigations is nearing its end.