Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, while hearing a writ of habeas corpus petition filed by a distressed father seeking the production of his missing daughter, laid down comprehensive guidelines for the handling of missing person cases, particularly those involving women and minors.
The Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice C.M. Poonacha expressed grave concern over the absence of the missing woman despite sustained police efforts. In a landmark decision, the Court not only directed continued investigation but also formulated procedural safeguards and supervisory mechanisms to ensure accountability and systematic handling of such cases in the future.
The Court remarked:
“The disappearance of a woman or child cannot be reduced to mere statistics in police records. Each missing person represents a family’s agony and the State’s solemn duty to protect life and liberty under Article 21.”
Facts
The petitioner, the father of the missing woman, approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging that his daughter, who worked as an accountant in a private company, went missing on 20 December 2023 after leaving her parents’ house in Hubli. Her phone remained switched off thereafter, and despite multiple efforts by the family, she could not be traced.
A missing complaint was filed on 27 December 2023, but the petitioner contended that the police failed to take effective steps to trace her. Consequently, he filed a writ of habeas corpus before the High Court in May 2024.
During the proceedings, the Court issued multiple directions for periodic status reports. Senior police officials, including the Superintendent of Police, Karwar, appeared personally before the Court and submitted affidavits detailing steps taken, including coordination with the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Despite these efforts, the detenue remained untraced as of September 2025.
Issues
- Whether the continuing failure of the police to trace the missing woman amounts to a violation of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
- What guidelines and mechanisms should be implemented to ensure accountability and effective investigation in cases of missing persons, particularly women and minors.
- Whether habeas corpus petitions should continue indefinitely when the missing person remains untraced.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the police response was negligent and perfunctory, with no effective coordination between local police units, anti-human trafficking cells, or digital tracking agencies. He emphasized that the missing woman was a working adult with no known enmity or reason to voluntarily disappear, making abduction or trafficking a strong possibility.
The petitioner urged the Court to lay down binding guidelines for timely action in missing person cases, arguing that delay in investigation often leads to loss of vital evidence. It was submitted that the absence of a structured review mechanism and inter-departmental coordination severely undermines investigations. The counsel requested the formation of a judicially supervised committee to monitor all pending missing person cases in the State.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, outlined the extensive steps taken by the police to trace the missing woman, including issuing lookout notices, circulating photographs, checking railway and bus stations, and coordinating with AHTU units across districts.
The State referred to multiple standing orders and circulars, such as Standing Order No. 741 (1977), Standing Order No. 885 (1990), and subsequent directives of 2010, 2012, and 2015, all of which govern police action in missing person cases. The State also pointed to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, mandating registration of FIRs, risk assessment, coordination with NGOs, and use of the Track-the-Missing-Child portal.
In response to the petitioner’s request for a new oversight framework, the State suggested a three-tier Supervisory Committee headed by senior police officers to review investigations every three months and submit reports to the High Court.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench undertook a comprehensive examination of the legal and administrative framework governing missing person cases, emphasizing that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses not just protection from unlawful deprivation of life but also an affirmative duty of the State to locate missing citizens.
It noted that Standing Orders 741 (1977), 885 (1990), and 1/APARADHA/17(2)/2010 establish a clear chain of responsibility from the Station House Officer to the Superintendent of Police. The Court also referred to Circular No. 3/2015, which requires that every complaint of a missing child be treated as a case of potential abduction or trafficking, with an immediate FIR registration.
Further, the Court discussed Circular No. 15/2015 issued in compliance with the decision of the High Court Legal Services Committee v. State of Karnataka, which incorporated the Supreme Court’s directions in Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2015) 13 SCC 39, mandating strict adherence to procedures for missing children.
The Bench reiterated that Rule 92 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, statutorily requires immediate FIR registration and involvement of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and AHTU when a child is reported missing.
Precedent Analysis
- Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 39 – The Supreme Court directed mandatory FIR registration in all missing child cases and presumed abduction or trafficking unless proven otherwise. The Karnataka High Court applied this principle to extend the same urgency to all missing person cases, irrespective of age or gender.
- Hori Lal v. Commissioner of Police (2002 SCC OnLine SC 37) – The Supreme Court laid down steps for publishing missing persons’ photographs and conducting neighborhood and forensic inquiries. The Court here reiterated the need for similar prompt measures.
- C. Shiva v. State of Karnataka (ILR 2007 KAR 740) – Karnataka High Court earlier directed creation of a centralized missing-persons database and specialized investigative units. This case’s directions were reaffirmed as precedential.
- Vinod v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 SCC OnLine Del 4719) – Delhi High Court emphasized immediate investigation within the first 24 hours and ruled out any waiting period. The present judgment adopts this critical “first 24 hours” standard.
- Lamboder Jha v. Govt. NCT of Delhi (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7804) – The Delhi High Court mandated multilingual SOPs and public awareness drives. The Karnataka High Court endorsed similar linguistic inclusivity for its own SOPs.
- Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 781) – The Supreme Court’s observations on trafficking and State accountability were cited to highlight the nexus between missing persons and human trafficking.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court expressed anguish at the plight of the petitioner and the continuing disappearance of his daughter despite multiple procedural steps taken. It acknowledged that while the police had followed existing circulars, systemic lapses persisted due to lack of periodic review and inadequate technological integration.
The Bench held that mere adherence to standing orders is insufficient unless backed by institutional oversight. It therefore accepted the State’s proposal to establish a “Committee for Supervision of Missing Complaints”, comprising:
- The Inspector General of Police (Range/Division)
- The Superintendent of Police (District)
- The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Jurisdictional Station)
This committee is tasked with reviewing investigations every three months, ensuring compliance with all SOPs and judicial directions, and submitting half-yearly reports to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court for monitoring.
The Court declared:
“The anguish of a parent whose child or daughter is missing cannot be mitigated merely by periodic affidavits. The State’s response must be structured, humane, and accountable.”
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition with detailed institutional and procedural directions to ensure that missing person cases—especially those involving women and children—are handled with urgency, transparency, and compassion.
It directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to monitor compliance reports submitted by the new Supervisory Committee and permitted revival of disposed petitions if the reports were found unsatisfactory.
The judgment thus institutionalizes a system of judicially monitored accountability, marking a significant step toward strengthening human rights protection for missing persons.
Implications
This ruling has far-reaching implications:
- It transforms missing person investigations into a matter of constitutional responsibility under Article 21.
- It mandates judicial supervision and structured review through periodic reporting mechanisms.
- It bridges the gap between legal mandates and administrative practice, ensuring humane treatment and rapid investigation of such cases.
It also paves the way for technological integration, including use of portals like Track the Missing Child, Khoya Paya, and Talash, ensuring inter-agency cooperation and transparency.
FAQs
1. What is the significance of the new Supervisory Committee?
It ensures continuous monitoring of missing person investigations by senior police officials, with mandatory reporting to the High Court every six months.
2. Does this judgment apply only to minors?
No. The Court extended its directions to all missing person cases, including women and adults, recognizing that trafficking and abduction risks are not age-specific.
3. Can the habeas corpus petition be reopened after disposal?
Yes. The Registrar (Judicial) can place the matter before the Court if the Committee’s reports are unsatisfactory or non-compliant.
