If a person has gone missing, the police not only have the duty to trace him out, but they are also quite capable of doing so, the Allahabad High Court observed. (Image generated using AI)Allahabad High Court missing person case: The Allahabad High Court recently pulled up the police for its failure to trace a missing person, observing that there was a tendency among some police officers to show “inertia” or “resistance” in tracing missing persons, which has been responsible for the greatest of tragedies.A bench of Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena made the remarks while hearing a plea concerning compliance with its earlier directions requiring the police to locate missing persons. Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena said the police can’t say that a missing person is untraceable, unless they have evidence that he is dead or has left the country.“The moment some person goes missing, the Police develop a kind of not just inertia, but also resistance to the idea of tracing out the missing man. This tendency of many a police officer, though not all, has been responsible for the greatest of tragedies, where human life, in singular number, which too is invaluable, and also in large numbers has/have been lost,” the Allahabad High Court said in its order dated March 25.Also Read | Top consumer body saves Kolkata Apollo Hospital from Rs 1.25 crore lawsuit‘Duty to trace’It is not at all open to the police to say that a missing man is not traceable, unless they are in a position to say, with some evidence in hand, that the missing person is dead or has left the country.If a person who has gone missing is under the Indian skies, the police not only have the duty to trace him out and produce him before the court, if so directed, but they are also quite capable of doing so.Sometimes, there is a tendency to disobey, not uncommon, amongst men and officers, in the ranks of the police. This case shows the same kind of reluctance.We are constrained to say that if missing persons are not traced out, we may be compelled to recommend disciplinary action, not only against the circle officer and the station house officer (SHO), but also against the superintendent of police (SP).This is so because, after all, nobody lower than the superintendent of police of the district is answerable for any offence, wrong, and breach of peace in the entire district.To fix responsibility on ranks much lower down is a device that the police have invented to save the higher-ups.Also Read | ‘Beyond getting high’: Delhi High Court denies bail to foreign national in heroin case, flags terror links in drug tradeOfficers summonedDuring the previous hearing on March 12, the Allahabad High Court had summoned the circle officer and investigating officer of Dhanghata Police Station in Sant Kabir Nagar after it had noted that the investigation officer had failed to submit any report of the probe.Subsequently, a compliance affidavit was filed before the court on behalf of the inspector and the circle officer appeared before the court in person, saying that the missing persons could not be traced despite best efforts.The court, therefore, gave 10 days to trace out the victim.Also Read | Husband’s duty vs drug charges: Citing wife’s illness, Andhra Pradesh High Court grants bail to man held with 80 kg ganja1.08 lakh people missingEarlier, in another matter, a division bench of the Allahabad High Court had noted that 1.08 lakh persons were reported missing across the state over two years, between 2024 and 2026.On seeing the data provided by the Police Technical Services Headquarters – 1,08,300 missing person complaints were registered from January 1, 2024, to January 18, 2026, of which 9,700 pertained to action taken to trace them – the court, on January 29, said it was shocking.Stating that it was “aghast at the attitude of the authorities in addressing complaints pertaining to missing persons”, the bench observed: “It is only when this court has taken cognisance of a person having gone missing that the official machinery has got into motion by lodging the FIR and by indicating efforts…now being made to trace the missing person.”Hearing the suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) on February 5, a coordinate bench of the high court issued directions to the state government seeking relevant data, and said a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), if not already in place, must be framed to tackle such cases.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd