Bengaluru: The high court has directed the state govt to submit a detailed compliance report regarding the implementation of Standing Order No. 1054, which establishes the mechanism for handling missing persons cases.In its report, the govt must clarify whether the district missing persons units have been constituted in all districts. It should also provide details on the composition of the review and supervisory committees formed to monitor such cases, along with the frequency of review meetings conducted by these committees. Further, the report must specify the total number of cases currently under investigation, including how many are classified as active, dormant, or traced. It should also outline the mechanism adopted for coordination with police authorities of other states in instances where a missing person is suspected to have moved outside the state.The report is to be submitted next month, as directed by Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order.In the case on hand, petitioner Mahesh, a resident of Bengaluru, approached the court after police put the FIR registered by them on June 26, 2020, in relation to his missing cousin Kumar, on the dormant list in May 2024.During the proceedings, police submitted a report regarding missing persons from 2020 till Nov 30, 2025.A perusal of the report showed that missing person complaints were filed for 38,073 men, of whom 31,603 were traced, leaving 6,470 untraced.In the case of women and children, the numbers were higher. A total of 71,699 women and children were reported missing, of whom 68,718 were traced, leaving 2,981 untraced.The state govt also placed on record Standing Order No. 1054 dated Jan 21, 2026, issued by the director general and inspector general of police (DG & IGP).Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that a large number of complaints relating to missing persons cannot be lost sight of, including minor children and young girls, reported across the state, and in many cases families are left without any meaningful information regarding the whereabouts of their loved ones for a long period of time.In such circumstances, it becomes the responsibility of the state to ensure that the institutional mechanisms contemplated under the standing orders are not merely existing on paper but are effectively operationalised in practice, the judge added.Since the FIR registered regarding the petitioner’s cousin was made an “active case” and the investigation is being continued, the judge disposed of the petition insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The matter will be listed next month for consideration of the compliance report.
