The Allahabad High Court has taken cognisance of a public interest litigation after expressing serious concern over data submitted by the Uttar Pradesh government showing that police action was initiated in only a small fraction of missing person cases registered in the state over a two-year period.
According to reports, the state informed the court that between January 2024 and January 2026, around 1,08,300 missing person complaints were recorded, but efforts to trace the individuals were noted in only about 9,700 cases. A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani observed that the figures suggested a worrying level of institutional apathy in responding to complaints filed by citizens, and warned that such lapses had direct implications for public safety and the rights of families searching for their relatives.
The proceedings stem from a writ petition filed by Vikrama Prasad, whose son went missing from Lucknow in July 2024. In earlier hearings, the court had described the handling of the case as an illustration of a casual and indifferent approach by the authorities.
The bench had earlier pointed out that an FIR in the matter was registered only in December 2025, nearly 18 months after the disappearance, and only after the High Court intervened. The delay, the judges noted, raised serious questions about the responsiveness of the police system, Maktoob Media reported.
Dissatisfied with an affidavit filed by the Lucknow Police Commissioner, the court had directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain the state-wide mechanism in place for dealing with missing person cases. In response, the ACS (Home) relied on figures from the Police Technical Services Headquarters, stating that data available on the CCTNS showed registrations of approximately 1,08,300 missing persons during the period in question, with tracing action recorded in roughly 9,700 cases by the concerned districts or commissionerates.
Describing the figures as alarming, the court said they reflected a complete lack of seriousness in the manner in which missing person complaints were being handled across Uttar Pradesh. The bench also noted that affidavits filed by senior Home Department officials were expected to contain accurate and dependable information.
The judges further referred to a circular issued by the Director General of Police, which mandates that CCTV footage be preserved for only two to two-and-a-half months. They cautioned that delays in responding to complaints could result in the loss of crucial evidence, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to trace missing persons.
Observing that the issue extended well beyond an individual grievance and involved a wider public interest, the bench formally registered the matter as a PIL and scheduled it for further hearing on February 5, 2026.