On August 1, 2017, an 11-year-old girl went missing in Guna district. Her name was masked in the court record. Seven years and three Special Investigation Teams later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said the police were still unable to establish whether she was alive.

In December 2024, the High Court transferred the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, describing the handling of the probe as “unprofessional, unethical and inefficient”. The court asked the CBI not only to investigate the disappearance but also to examine the conduct and competence of officers involved in the earlier probe.

That case is an extreme example, but it captures the central question now confronting Madhya Pradesh: when someone disappears, does the state treat the first hours as an emergency—or does a family have to keep pushing before the system fully moves?

The issue returned to court this week. The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the state government, the Director General of Police and other authorities on a PIL alleging persistent gaps in tracing missing women and children in Indore district. Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Rajendra Kumar Vani directed the respondents to reply within six weeks.

The notice is not a finding of wrongdoing. The allegations remain to be answered by the state. But the petition connects a fresh legal challenge with questions raised repeatedly in older cases: delayed registration, fragmented records, weak interstate coordination, and specialised units that may exist on paper but are not always visible in outcomes.

Case 1: A Guna family waited seven years—and the probe went to the CBI

The High Court had expressed strong concern in the litigation well before transferring it to the CBI. In a July 2022 order, it noted that three SITs had failed to trace the minor and that the investigation had stalled despite material emerging during the probe. The court also questioned why no FIR had been registered on a disclosure alleging that a serious crime had been committed against her.

By December 2024, the court concluded that an outside agency was required. It ordered the CBI to constitute a fresh SIT, examine the original investigation and submit progress reports every three months.

The lesson is larger than one unsolved file: creating multiple teams cannot substitute for a fast, evidence-led first response, a clear chain of responsibility and periodic scrutiny of what investigators have actually done.

Case 2: In Bhopal, the NHRC stepped in after 18 days

In April 2025, a six-year-old girl went missing from beneath an overbridge in Bhopal’s Koh-e-Fiza area. Eighteen days later, the National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognisance of a media report alleging that the police still had no answer.

The girl’s mother, who was homeless, reportedly suspected the involvement of a relative and alleged that the investigation was not fair. The NHRC issued notices to Madhya Pradesh’s Chief Secretary and DGP, seeking a detailed report within two weeks.

The Commission also recorded allegations of patchy CCTV coverage, absent rapid-response teams and poor coordination between units. These were reported claims, not final findings. Yet the intervention highlighted a crucial equity gap: a missing child’s chances should not depend on whether her family has money, influence, a permanent address or the ability to repeatedly visit a police station.

Case 3: A state border became an investigative barrier

In February 2025, a 15-year-old boy from a Jabalpur family went missing from Mauranipur in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh. His family lodged a report, but he remained untraced for months.

In May, the Madhya Pradesh High Court asked the DGPs of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh to form a joint team within seven days. The direction exposed a recurring vulnerability in missing-person investigations: people and vehicles can cross a state border in minutes, while police files, jurisdiction and coordination may move far more slowly.

Interstate alerts, transport checks, mobile and digital leads, and shared databases must begin early; they should not require a family to first reach a constitutional court.

The numbers are large—but they must be read honestly

Figures reported from a written reply in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly in February 2026 said about 2.69 lakh women and girls had been reported missing across the state from 2020 to early 2026. The government said roughly 1.58 lakh women and 61,000 girls had been traced or rescued, while nearly 48,000 women and 2,200 girls remained in pending cases.

Those numbers show two realities at once. Police have located a large majority of those reported missing, but more than 50,000 pending cases still represent a major unresolved backlog.

They also require careful interpretation. A missing-person report is not automatically evidence of trafficking, abduction or murder. Adults may leave voluntarily, and many children return or are traced quickly. Equally, a high recovery percentage cannot erase long-pending cases or show whether a person was found in two hours, two months or several years.

Transparent data should therefore reveal more than a single total. It should show district, age and gender; the date of report and recovery; time taken to trace; cases involving a suspected offence; interstate referrals; and files pending beyond 30 days, six months and one year.

The Indore PIL puts the data gap before the court

The current PIL was filed by social activist Abhijeet Pandey through advocate Shubham Mandil. It alleges that updated information on missing women and children in Indore is not readily available and that RTI applications filed in July 2026 did not produce the requested district-wise data.

The petition seeks an expert committee, a status report covering cases from January 2021, periodic review by senior police officers, functioning Anti-Human Trafficking Units, identification of a nodal officer and regular publication of district-wise missing, traced and pending figures.

These are the petitioner’s claims and requests; the state’s response is awaited. The six-week reply period offers the government an opportunity to publish reconciled data and show, case by case, how the system works after the first complaint.

The law now leaves no room for a 24-hour wait

On May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court directed every police station in India to immediately register an FIR upon receiving information that any person is missing—without a preliminary inquiry or asking the family to search first. It called the initial period the “golden hours” for safe recovery.

On August 5, the court clarified that “person” means everyone, irrespective of age or gender, after being told that some states had understood the earlier direction as applying only to children. It warned that non-compliance could lead to contempt notices to Chief Secretaries and DGPs.

The Supreme Court also directed states to make Anti-Human Trafficking Units fully functional, transfer a case to a specialised unit as soon as there is sufficient reason to suspect trafficking, and support the creation of an integrated national grid connecting police stations and relevant tracing platforms.

For Madhya Pradesh, the test is now measurable: are FIRs being registered immediately in every district, and can the state show that its specialised units have staff, authority, equipment and a record of action?

A Betul rescue shows what rapid coordination can achieve

The record is not only one of failure. In December 2025, a six-year-old girl was allegedly abducted from Multai in Betul district and taken towards Maharashtra. Police alerted neighbouring districts, launched search teams and coordinated across the border. The child was found safe at a tea stall in Maharashtra within 24 hours, and the suspect was later arrested using technical and mobile-location analysis.

The Multai case does not cancel the failures documented elsewhere. It demonstrates the opposite: when police treat the disappearance as urgent, share alerts across jurisdictions and use technical leads quickly, the first day can change the outcome.

Five gaps the state’s reply should address

1. FIR delay: How many missing-person complaints received since May 22 were converted into FIRs immediately, as directed by the Supreme Court?

2. Long-pending cases: How many minors and adults have remained untraced for more than six months, one year and five years?

3. Specialised capacity: Which district Anti-Human Trafficking Units are fully staffed and operational, and how many cases have they handled?

4. Border coordination: Is there a 24x7 protocol for instant alerts to neighbouring states and railway, bus and highway units?

5. Public accountability: Will the government publish a monthly district dashboard showing reports, recoveries, time-to-trace and pending cases?

Behind every pending file is not merely a number but an unresolved question about a person’s safety. The High Court notice gives Madhya Pradesh a chance to answer with verified data and demonstrable action. The real measure, however, will be simpler: whether the next family entering a police station is heard immediately—before the golden hours are lost.