The pitfalls of mandatory FIRs

Why in the News

A mandatory First Information Report (FIR) for every missing “person” carries a presumption of abduction or trafficking, built for missing children, into cases where adults leave home by choice. The Supreme Court has reiterated that police must register one on any such report, for every person, not only a child.

What does the missing person FIR rule require?

1. What an FIR is: An FIR is the first written police record of an offence, like opening a case file police must then pursue.
2. No preliminary enquiry: The Court’s May directions in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others bar a preliminary enquiry, a short check of whether any offence occurred. Nor can police leave the family to search first.
3. Supporting directions: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) must run a trafficking portal, and district anti human trafficking units (AHTUs) must be active. Recovered children are restored after Aadhaar verification.
4. The takeaway: A safeguard built so no missing child is ignored now forces a criminal case for every missing adult.

Where did the presumption of abduction come from?

1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013): The G. Ganesh directions repeat this case, which concerned only missing children. It made FIRs mandatory so police begin tracing at once.
2. Presumption of a crime: Madhya Pradesh asked how the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), applied. The Court held a missing child is presumed abducted or trafficked until investigation shows otherwise.
3. Child specific machinery: The directions also required:
   • each State sets up Special Juvenile Police Units;
   • each station has a trained Juvenile Welfare Officer;
   • a child untraced after four months goes to the AHTU.
4. Why it fits children: A child’s consent has no legal relevance, so treating a disappearance as a cognisable offence, one police investigate without a court order, is justified.

Why does the presumption fail for adults?

1. Adult agency: Many adults leave home to live together or marry without parental consent, yet each is first reported missing.
2. Tracing becomes a duty: A mandatory FIR obliges police to trace even an adult who left a note of consent.
3. Honour killings: Some couples, once found, have been killed in the name of family honour, with or without police help.
4. Presumption without evidence: A blanket presumption of kidnapping for every missing adult, without evidence, runs against the spirit of the statute.

How did a child’s case reach adults?

1. The G. Ganesh facts: A toddler missing from Chennai stayed untraced for 14 years. The petitioner alleged police ignored the MHA’s 2013 guidelines.
2. Adults never in issue: The case gave the Court no occasion to take up missing adults on its own motion (suo motu).
3. States not heard: The May judgment does not show that the States, which run the police, were heard.

Challenges

1. Diverted investigators: Tracing adults who left by choice pulls police off genuine cases.
2. Right to choose a partner: Forced tracing intrudes on adult autonomy. Eg. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018).
3. Real trafficking risk: Any filter for adult cases must not delay genuine trafficking cases.

Way Forward

1. Time bound preliminary enquiry: Allow police a week or a fortnight to filter out adult cases credibly showing no abduction or trafficking.
2. Review of the direction: The Court should review its mandatory FIR direction for adults after hearing the States.
3. Couple protection protocol: Police should record a found adult’s consent and withhold their location, per Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018).

Conclusion

The Court has turned a child protection rule into a presumption of crime against every adult who leaves home. The question to watch is whether police may verify an adult’s choice before treating it as a crime.

Key numbers

1. Information on cognisable offences: Section 154 CrPC, now Section 173 BNSS.
2. Juvenile Welfare Officer: Section 63, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
3. BNSS preliminary enquiry window: Up to 14 days.

What is the FIR registration regime?

1. About: A non cognisable offence gets only a diary entry, and police need a Magistrate’s order to investigate it.
2. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013): A five judge Constitution Bench made FIRs mandatory, allowing preliminary enquiry only in narrow categories such as matrimonial disputes.
3. Statutory preliminary enquiry: For offences punishable with three to seven years, the BNSS permits a preliminary enquiry with a senior officer’s permission.
4. Zero FIR: An FIR can be lodged at any station and transferred to the right one.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct? 1. A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry. 3. Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically. Select the answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 only (d) 2 only Answer: D”