Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has taken strong suo moto cognizance of the rising number of missing persons in Uttar Pradesh, highlighting the failure of state police to act on the majority of reported cases.
The court’s intervention marks a critical judicial effort to investigate insufficient action and ensure accountability in handling missing person complaints. This move comes amid shockingly low police response despite over one lakh reports in the last two years.
Background of the UP Missing Persons PIL
The issue first caught judicial attention when a criminal writ petition was filed by a petitioner whose son went missing in July 2024. The petitioner alleged sustained inaction by police despite repeated attempts to trace his son. During proceedings, an affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, revealed that approximately 1,08,300 missing person complaints were registered in the state between January 1, 2024 and January 18, 2026.
However, out of this massive number, police action was reportedly initiated in only 9,700 cases, leaving over 90 % of complaints with no recorded action.
The bench described these figures as “alarming” and “shocking,” citing a lack of urgency and proper mechanisms for tracing missing persons.
High Court’s Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Order
In response, the Allahabad High Court converted the matter into a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled “In Re: Missing Persons in the State.”
The PIL underscores the larger public interest at stake, given the vast number of unresolved cases and the apparent negligence of police authorities.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice A.K. Chaudhary has summoned the Director General of Police (DGP) and Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department to explain the system currently in use for recording and investigating missing person complaints. They have been directed to produce complete data, SOPs, and the mechanisms in place, if any.
Court Major Concerns on UP Missing Persons PIL
During the hearing, the court questioned whether any Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) exists to guide police actions when a missing complaint is lodged. If no formal SOP is in place, the court directs the state government to issue one immediately. This is intended to ensure that missing persons’ complaints are not ignored or left uninvestigated.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 23, 2026, where the DGP and Additional Chief Secretary are expected to participate via video conferencing and assist the bench on key issues.
Judicial Expectations and State Government Response
The bench’s stern remarks reflect growing judicial impatience with what it perceives as a “lackadaisical” approach by the authorities. The court stressed that cases involving missing persons demand a sense of urgency, given the emotional and societal implications for families and communities.
The state government has acknowledged data inconsistencies, suggesting that many missing persons may have been traced, though updates were reportedly not recorded properly in official systems. Officials assured the court that revised figures and filtered data would be provided in the upcoming hearing.
