The pitfalls of mandatory FIRs

Why in the News

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

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”