The Pitfalls of Mandatory FIRs: Missing Adults, Consenting Couples and the Case for a Short Enquiry

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Hindu

Resources for this Article

Download PDF Print-ready A4 notes · Free

The Lift Line

“A blanket presumption of kidnapping or trafficking in every case of a missing adult, without any evidence, is against the spirit of the statute.”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

R.K. Vij, a former IPS officer, writes from the police station’s point of view about a Supreme Court direction that is well meant but, he argues, over-broad. It connects three high-yield themes: police reforms and FIR registration, human trafficking, and the autonomy of adults against honour crimes. For background, read it with our 23 May report on the Supreme Court’s missing-child directions.

GS Paper 2: Mechanisms, laws and institutions for the protection of vulnerable sections; the judiciary; police and criminal justice. GS Paper 1: Social issues: women, marriage and caste; social empowerment.

Background and Context

Case or law	What it established
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (Constitution Bench, 2013)	FIR registration is mandatory if information discloses a cognisable offence; a preliminary inquiry is allowed only in limited categories (matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, abnormal delay), and must be time-bound
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013)	Mandatory FIR for every missing child; a presumption of abduction or trafficking unless investigation shows otherwise; special juvenile police units and trained officers at police stations
G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (22 May 2026, clarified 5 August 2026; the background to this column)	Pan-India directions on missing children (immediate FIR, anti-trafficking units, databases), arising from a child missing in Chennai since 2011; the August order, the author writes, extended the FIR mandate to every missing “person”
Section 173, BNSS, 2023 (in force since 2024)	Replaced Section 154 CrPC; allows Zero FIR and e-FIR; Section 173(3) permits a preliminary enquiry within 14 days, with the permission of an officer of Deputy Superintendent rank or above, for offences punishable with three to seven years

Why adults are different. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the Supreme Court held that an adult’s choice of partner is protected by Article 21. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) it laid down preventive, remedial and punitive measures against honour crimes, including protection for couples who fear their families.

The Analysis

1. The presumption fits children, not adults. For a child, consent is legally irrelevant, so disappearance is itself a red flag and speed saves lives. An adult may leave home lawfully, and treating every such departure as a presumed crime reverses the burden against the person’s own choice.

2. The FIR sets off a chain. Once a kidnapping FIR is registered, the police are duty-bound to trace the person, often to produce them before a magistrate or hand them back to the family. For an inter-caste or inter-faith couple, that chain can end in violence.

3. A notice to the police does not stop the pursuit. Even when an adult leaves word of their willingness, the author notes, the police would still have to trace them to verify it. The adult’s statement should close the matter where there is no sign of coercion.

4. Procedure matters. The author points out that the question of missing adults was not before the Court, and that the States do not appear to have been heard. Broad directions from narrow facts are a recurring criticism of judicial policy-making.

5. The law already knows the middle path. Section 173(3) of the BNSS allows a 14-day preliminary enquiry for mid-level offences. The author asks for a similar “week or fortnight” to filter missing-adult reports, not for abandoning registration.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The law on FIRs:

• Section 173, BNSS, 2023 replaced Section 154, CrPC; in force since 2024 (1 July 2024).
• Zero FIR: information can be given at any police station irrespective of jurisdiction; e-FIR is recognised.
• Section 173(3): preliminary enquiry within 14 days for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years, with DSP-rank permission.
• Lalita Kumari (2013): registration mandatory; limited categories allow a preliminary inquiry.

Children and trafficking:

• Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2013): FIR mandatory for missing children; presumption of abduction or trafficking.
• Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) operate at the district level.
• JJ Act, 2015 (Section 107): a Child Welfare Police Officer in every police station; a Special Juvenile Police Unit in every district.

Adults and choice:

• Lata Singh (2006) and Shafin Jahan (2018): choice of partner protected by Article 21.
• Shakti Vahini (2018): guidelines against honour crimes.

Prelims, the traps:

• Lalita Kumari did not ban preliminary inquiries; it confined them to specified categories.
• The BNSS preliminary enquiry is for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years, not for all offences.

⚠️ Watch the trap: “Mandatory FIR” does not mean “mandatory arrest”. Registration starts an investigation; arrest is governed by separate safeguards.

The Debate

For the author’s view. Criminal law should not presume a crime where an adult has exercised a constitutional freedom. A short enquiry would protect couples and save police time for genuine abductions.

Against it. Discretion at the registration stage is exactly what Lalita Kumari removed, because police stations used it to keep crimes off the books. Trafficking of adult women is real, and the first hours matter; a filter could let genuine cases slip.

The balanced verdict. Distinguish, do not dilute. Keep mandatory FIRs for children and whenever there is any sign of force, fraud or a minor involved. For adults, allow a short, recorded, time-bound enquiry in which the person’s own statement, taken directly, carries decisive weight, with protection under Shakti Vahini where needed.

How to Think About This

Ask who the law is protecting in each case. A presumption is a tool that shifts risk. For a child, it shifts risk away from the vulnerable person. For an adult who has left by choice, the same presumption can shift risk onto them. Good answers show that the same rule can protect or endanger depending on whom it is applied to.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Direction: FIR for every missing “person”, presuming kidnapping or trafficking (G. Ganesh, 2026).
• Author’s objection: right for children, risky for adults who leave by choice.
• Legal anchors: Lalita Kumari (2013); Bachpan Bachao Andolan (2013); BNSS Section 173(3); Lata Singh, Shafin Jahan, Shakti Vahini.
• Proposal: a week or fortnight’s preliminary enquiry for missing adults.
• Risk to manage: police reluctance to register genuine crimes.

Sources: The Hindu, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India Code), Supreme Court of India

Source: The Pitfalls of Mandatory FIRs: Missing Adults, Consenting Couples and the Case for a Short Enquiry — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

R.K. Vij argues that the Supreme Court’s direction to register an FIR on every report of a missing person, with a presumption of kidnapping or trafficking, is sound for children but problematic for adults, because many adults leave home by choice, and police tracing them can expose consenting couples to family violence; a short preliminary enquiry should be allowed.

✓ Supporting

• In G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court issued directions in May 2026 on missing children and, on 5 August 2026, clarified that “person” covers every missing person, not only children.
• The directions echo Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013), where the Court mandated FIRs for missing children and a presumption of abduction or trafficking unless investigation proves otherwise.
• A child’s consent has no legal relevance, so a presumption of a cognisable offence is justified; an adult who leaves voluntarily is in a different position.
• Couples who marry against parental wishes are usually first reported as missing; if every report becomes an FIR, the police must trace and often hand them over, and some couples have been killed after being found.
• The States were apparently not heard on missing adults, and the case before the Court concerned a child missing since 2011.

⚠ Counter

Any delay in registration can cost lives in trafficking and abduction cases, where the first hours matter most; a discretionary enquiry window has historically been used by police to avoid registering crimes, which is why Lalita Kumari made registration mandatory.

→ Way Forward

Keep mandatory FIRs for children; for adults, allow a short, time-bound preliminary enquiry, record the adult’s own statement where they can be contacted, and follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines on protecting couples from honour crimes.