Supreme Court Calls For Pan-India SOP To Combat Human Trafficking; Constitutes Expert Core Committee For Practical Strategy

Emphasizing that the Court seeks a practical strategy rather than academic formulas, the Bench constituted a high-level Core Committee—including the Additional Solicitor General and former police officials—to deliberate on state-level recommendations and finalize a framework that ensures investigations are seriously pursued on the ground from the moment a complaint is received.

The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “The Court will indicate that in such matters of human trafficking, including child trafficking, time is of the greatest importance and, thus, whatever guidelines are required/suggestions made, should be after factoring the time frame of the action which the police is required to take immediately upon receipt of a complaint relating to missing of a person. The Delhi Government instructions may also be looked into by the Union, rest of the States and the Union Territories…Let the Home Secretary, Union of India; the Home Secretaries and the Directors General of Police of the States and the Union Territories, hold a discussion with all the stakeholders who are specifically dealing with issues of human trafficking within their jurisdiction, and come up with specific proposals/suggestions.”

Advocate on Record Aarthi Rajan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Additional Solicitor General S.D Sanjay, Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj and Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

A minor child, aged less than two years, went missing one evening. The petitioner immediately lodged a complaint, and a "child missing" case was registered. Although the local police failed to take effective steps to trace the child, they eventually filed a closure report before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate.

Aggrieved by the closure of the case, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition. The High Court subsequently directed a specialized crime branch to take over the investigation and ensure the family was informed of the progress. After several years of investigation, this specialized unit filed a final report before the Magistrate, classifying the case as "undetectable".

Before the Lower Court and the High Court

The petitioner challenged this "undetectable" finding by filing a protest petition, seeking a more comprehensive and detailed investigation. Upon hearing this petition, the Magistrate directed the constitution of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) dedicated to finding the missing child. The SIT later submitted a status report regarding their efforts.

After reviewing the SIT's report and hearing all parties, the Magistrate dismissed the petition, concluding that the child remained "undetectable" despite the efforts made. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the High Court, arguing that the police had failed to follow mandatory government guidelines for missing children. However, the High Court observed that the police had taken sufficient efforts and noted that certain guidelines cited were not applicable as the child went missing before they were issued. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower court's order.

Before the Supreme Court

The Petitioner then filed a Special Leave to Appeal, challenging the order passed by the High Court. Previously, the Apex Court asked the Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to appear in the case. The State subsequently filed a status report indicating that the investigation is progressing. Counsel for the State informed the Court that authorities are using artificial intelligence to locate the missing child and are sharing information with other states. The Court noted these steps as being in the "right direction" but emphasized that the pace of the investigation must not be diluted.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate HS Phoolka submitted that he had the occasion to assist the Delhi High Court in a PIL regarding human trafficking and pursuant to that certain guidelines were issued by the State of Delhi of the manner in which the police is supposed to act in a fixed time-bound manner.

The Court said, “Accordingly, personally affirmed affidavit be filed, latest by 16.04.2026, by all the Directors General of Police of the aforesaid States who have not entered appearance to explain the circumstances under which they have chosen not to appear despite notice being issued and duly served to them, failing which they shall be personally present before this Court. We make it clear that if no such affidavit is filed by them till 16.04.2026, no excuse for their non-appearance shall be acceptable. However, under genuine difficulty and for bona fide reasons, not only application seeking exemption has to be filed, but order on the said application shall also be required to be obtained on the said application, prior to the next date fixed in the case. We make it clear that failure to do so may lead to this Court issuing notice for contempt against them.”

The Court also directed that the Union and the States file a detailed affidavit regarding to what standard procedure, according to them, that should be adopted in such matters.

“We indicate that the Court is not interested in any hypothetical or academic formula, but rather a practical strategy/approach which can be implemented/put into place right away, at the local Police Station level under whose jurisdiction the incident occurs”, the Court said.

The Court asked the States and the Union Territories to hold such an exercise within one month and forward their recommendations to ASG, who shall then get an exercise conducted under the aegis of the Union Home Ministry, and the same shall be deliberated to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be implemented pan-India.

The Court reiterated that the exercise initially shall be limited to the very basic issue of investigation, not only being initiated but seriously pursued immediately upon a report received relating to any missing person, more so in the background that till the person is finally located, the case shall be kept alive not just on paper, but actually on the ground also.

The Court directed, “We further direct that other specialised agencies working in the field of human trafficking, shall be also asked to join in the exercise and their views and inputs taken, so as to come up with a workable and effective formula. For the purposes of finally coming up with a common SOP, for the present, we constitute a Committee of Mr. P.M. Nair, Former IPS Officer and DG, NDRF, Government of India and Mr. Veerendra Kumar Mishra, IPS, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned ASG as the core group for the exercise, as indicated and visualized in this order. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned ASG shall be the Convenor of the Committee and Coordinator for the exercise. The Court shall decide with regard to nominating more persons to the Committee on the next date.”

The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to provide all such required support to the Committee, as may be communicated through the ASG, including proper and sufficient office space, secretarial staff etc. It was directed that it shall also take care of the expenses incurred by the Committee Members for the purposes of the exercise which they are to undertake in terms of this order, including attending meetings/conferences convened for this purpose.

The Court also asked the Ministry to arrange for or reimburse, as per their desire, all the Committee Members with regard to their travelling, boarding and lodging expenses.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for further hearing on April 21, 2026.

Cause Title: G Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11263/2025]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate on Record Aarthi Rajan, Advocate Arvind Srevatsa, Advocate S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Advocate Abhilasha Shrawat, Advocate Kartik Malhotra, Advocate Amar Kumar.

Respondents: Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Additional Solicitor General S.D Sanjay, Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate on Record Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate on Record Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocate on Record Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate on Record Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate on Record Disha Singh, Advocate on Record Ankit Roy, Advocate on Record Manish Kumar, Advocate on Record Subodh S. Patil, Advocate on Record Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record Pallavi Langar, Advocate on Record Naveen Sharma, Advocate on Record Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate on Record Harshad V. Hameed, Advocate on Record Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate on Record K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate on Record Karan Sharma, Advocate on Record Nidhi Jaswal, Advocate on Record Devina Sehgal, Advocate on Record Ruchira Goel, Advocate on Record Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocate on Record Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate on Record Kunal Mimani, Advocate on Record Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate on Record Aravindh S., Advocate on Record Saksham Maheshwari and others.

Click here to read/download the Order