The pitfalls of mandatory FIRs

Polity & Governance / Criminal Justice System · 28 September 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

2-minute summary

The Supreme Court, in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reiterated that police must mandatorily register an FIR upon receiving information about any missing 'person', extending principles originally laid down for missing children in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013). The ruling mandates immediate FIR registration without preliminary enquiries, activation of Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs), and a centralized MHA portal. While aimed at tackling heinous crimes like child trafficking and ensuring swift police accountability, the policy raises practical and civil liberties concerns regarding adults. Unlike children, adults possess legal agency and frequently leave homes voluntarily—such as consenting couples or individuals escaping abusive domestic environments. Mandatory FIR registration in all missing adult cases strips police of discretion to filter out non-cognizable departures through preliminary checks, potentially leading to unnecessary state intrusion, breach of privacy, and exposure of consenting adults to parental harassment or honour crimes.

Why it's in the news

The Supreme Court's directive in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu mandating the registration of FIRs for all missing persons without preliminary inquiry has sparked debates on the balance between curbing human trafficking and protecting the individual agency and privacy of adults.

Facts to remember

• In G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, the Supreme Court reiterated that police must mandatorily register an FIR upon receiving information about any missing person.
• The ruling extends principles originally laid down for missing children in the 2013 case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India.
• In Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a Constitution Bench held that registering an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if information discloses a cognizable offence.

Background and context

The mandatory registration of FIRs in cognizable offences has evolved significantly through judicial interventions. Historically, police often avoided registering FIRs to manipulate crime statistics. In Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if the information discloses a cognizable offence, though it allowed a limited preliminary inquiry in specific categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, and medical negligence. For missing children, the Supreme Court in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013) directed a mandatory FIR presumption of abduction or trafficking. The recent ruling in G. Ganesh extends this absolute mandatory approach to all missing persons under the updated legal framework (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), renewing tensions between systemic accountability and individual adult liberties.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty; invoked regarding adult autonomy, right to privacy, and the potential overreach of mandatory police intervention into the private lives of consenting adults.

Government schemes

• Track Child Portal / MHA Anti-Human Trafficking Portal — Centralized portal mandated for tracking missing children and victims of human trafficking, linked with specialized Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs).

Mains practice: Examine the challenges and implications of judicial directives mandating absolute FIR registration in all missing persons cases, balancing state welfare obligations with adult individual autonomy.

Recent judicial pronouncements, such as in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, mandate immediate FIR registration for all missing persons without preliminary inquiry, extending principles meant for child trafficking. While designed to plug systemic loopholes and tackle human trafficking, this approach presents complex policy trade-offs.

• Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Immediate FIR registration bypasses police apathy, ensuring that investigative machinery swings into action instantly, which is vital for recovering trafficked children and vulnerable victims.

• Conflict with Adult Agency: Unlike minors, adults possess full legal agency. Many adults leave homes voluntarily due to domestic friction, career choices, or to marry against parental wishes.

• Threat to Privacy and Safety: Mandatory tracking of consenting adults can inadvertently compromise their safety, exposing them to familial harassment or 'honour crimes' orchestrated by conservative family networks.

• Operational Overburdening of Police: Requiring exhaustive FIRs and tracing efforts for every voluntary departure strains an already resource-starved police force, diluting focus from heinous crimes.

Conclusion:

While institutional accountability in missing persons cases is paramount, a nuanced framework is required. Permitting a brief, time-bound preliminary inquiry window for adults can protect personal liberty and adult agency without diluting the state's resolve against human trafficking.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. With reference to the registration of First Information Report (FIR) in India, consider the following statements: 1. Under Section 154 of the erstwhile CrPC (and corresponding provisions of BNSS), registration of an FIR is mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offence. 2. In the landmark Lalita Kumari case (2014), the Supreme Court permitted a preliminary inquiry prior to FIR registration in certain categories such as matrimonial disputes and commercial offences. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: C. Both statements are correct. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) ruled that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if cognizable information is disclosed, while carving out exceptions where a limited preliminary inquiry is permissible (e.g., matrimonial disputes, medical negligence, corruption cases).

Q2. Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs), frequently referenced in judicial guidelines regarding missing persons, operate primarily under the administrative purview of which authority?

1. Ministry of Women and Child Development
2. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
3. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
4. Ministry of Home Affairs / State Police Departments

Answer: D. Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) are specialized police units established at the district level by State governments, often supported and coordinated through guidelines and funding schemes by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

Q3. The presumption of abduction or trafficking upon receiving information about a missing child was notably reinforced by the Supreme Court in which of the following landmark cases?

1. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
3. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Answer: C. In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court dealt specifically with missing children, directing mandatory FIR registration and setting an initial legal presumption of abduction or trafficking to activate immediate police response.

Revision flashcards

• What was the core ruling in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026)? The Supreme Court reiterated that police must mandatorily register an FIR upon receiving any information about a missing 'person', extending child-missing protocols to all missing individuals.
• What is the primary policy dilemma regarding mandatory FIR registration for missing adults? Adults possess legal agency and often leave home voluntarily (e.g., consenting couples). Mandatory FIRs strip police of filtering discretion, potentially violating adult privacy and exposing them to familial harassment or honour crimes.
• Which landmark 2014 Supreme Court judgment dealt with the mandatory nature of FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC? Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandated FIR registration for cognizable offences while permitting limited preliminary inquiry in specific categories.
• What is the role of Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs)? Specialized district-level police units mandated to handle cases of human trafficking and unrecovered missing children/persons after specified investigation periods.
• Which constitutional article is most directly implicated when state authorities investigate the voluntary whereabouts of consenting adult citizens? Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty, encompassing the Right to Privacy and individual autonomy).