Karnataka High Court Calls For Greater Inter-State Police Coordination In Missing Persons Cases; Highlights Need For National Database
Court noted that the Standing Orders mandated establishment of a District Missing Persons Unit (DMPU) in each district
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has emphasised the need for greater coordination between Police authorities across States while dealing with missing persons cases, observing that mobility across State borders often requires cooperation between different jurisdictions. The Court also highlighted the need for a national framework and database to facilitate coordinated efforts, particularly in cases involving missing children and girls.
The Bench noted the Standing Order No.1054, issued on January 29, 2026 that contemplates the establishment of a District Missing Persons Unit (DMPU) in each district. The purpose of constituting such units was to create a specialised administrative structure responsible for receiving complaints relating to missing persons, coordinating investigations, maintaining records and ensuring follow-up action in such cases.
The observations came while the Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a man seeking steps to trace his cousin who had been missing since June 2020. An FIR had been registered on June 15, 2020, but the petitioner later discovered that the case had been marked as “dormant” after initial investigation did not yield further leads.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “It is therefore hoped and expected that whenever the authorities of the State of Karnataka request the assistance of police authorities in another State in tracing a missing person, such request would be responded to in a cooperative manner. Likewise, the police authorities in the State of Karnataka would also extend similar cooperation whenever assistance is sought by other States in relation to missing persons investigations. Such reciprocal cooperation becomes particularly crucial in cases involving missing children and missing girls, which are matters of grave concern to society and require urgent and coordinated action. It would also be necessary that a national framework with a database is set up to enable co-ordination by authorities across jurisdictions, since trafficking can happen from one state to another and in many cases separated by several states”.
Noting the AGA’s submission that investigating authorities have resumed their efforts to trace the missing person and that the investigation would continue until the missing individual is located or further conclusive information is obtained, the Bench observed, “However, the matter cannot be viewed purely from the perspective of the individual grievance of the petitioner alone. The larger issue that arises for consideration relates to the effective implementation of Standing Order No.1054 and the monitoring mechanisms contemplated thereunder. Since the State has placed reliance upon the said Standing Order and the circulars issued thereunder to indicate that a structured mechanism now exists for dealing with missing persons cases, it becomes necessary for this Court to ensure that such mechanism is actually functioning in the manner intended”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Purushothama N. appeared for the petitioner and K.P. Yashodha, AGA appeared for the respondent.
During the proceedings, the State placed before the Court details of measures undertaken to improve the investigation of missing persons cases, including the issuance of Standing Orders prescribing Standard Operating Procedures for registration, investigation, and monitoring of such cases, along with the creation of dedicated Missing Persons Units and squads at the district level.
The Court also examined statewide data on missing persons between 2020 and 2025. According to the figures placed on record, 38,073 men were reported missing, of whom 31,603 were traced while 6,470 remain untraced. In addition, 71,699 women and children were reported missing, of whom 68,718 were traced while 2,981 remain untraced. The data also indicated that a significant number of missing children were girls in the 13–17 age group, raising concerns about vulnerability and trafficking risks.
However, referring to the Standing Orders, the Court observed that the precise modalities of such coordination cannot be exhaustively codified in an administrative order and would necessarily depend upon mutual cooperation between police authorities of different States on a case-to-case basis.
The Court further noted that a large number of complaints relating to missing persons are reported every year across the State, leaving many families without meaningful information regarding the whereabouts of their loved ones for prolonged periods. In this backdrop, it stressed that the institutional mechanisms contemplated under the Standing Orders must not remain merely on paper but must be effectively operationalised in practice.
Cause Title: Mahesh v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:8090]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Purushothama N., Advocate.
Respondents: K.P. Yashodha, AGA.