Lucknow, Feb. 5 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has expressed strong dismay over the UP government's own admission that between January 2024 and January 2026, approximately 1,08,300 missing person complaints were registered and only in 9,700 such cases, action was taken by the state police to trace the individuals. With this, the court directed to register a public interest litigation (PIL) on the issue of missing persons in the state as the matter involves the larger public interest. "The said data is shocking and we are aghast at the attitude of the authorities in addressing the complaints pertaining to missing persons, which obviously requires a sense of urgency on the part of the authorities," the court observed. Registering a PIL on the issue, the high court directed to list the matter before an appropriate bench for hearing on February 5 (Thursday). The division bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani passed this order on January 29 on the petition filed by Vikrama Prasad, whose son had gone missing from the state capital in July 2024. The court also took note of the "total lack of seriousness" on the part of the authorities to act upon the missing complaints that are lodged by the state residents. Earlier, the court had termed the petition a "classic example of the casual and cavalier attitude" of the authorities concerned. On January 29, the court noted that the official machinery only got into motion and lodged an FIR in the missing case in December 2025, nearly one-and-a-half years later, that too after the high court had intervened. The court had previously expressed dissatisfaction with a personal affidavit filed by the commissioner of police, Lucknow, in this matter and had directed the additional chief secretary (Home) to explain the state-wide mechanism for handling such cases. The personal affidavit filed by the ACS (Home) on January 29, 2026, relied on data from the Police Technical Services headquarters. The court reproduced the relevant Hindi text from a letter dated January 22, 2026, which translates to: "According to the data available in CCTNS, from 01-01-2024 to 18-01-2026, approximately 1,08,300 missing person registrations have been done, in which details regarding action of person trace has been recorded by the concerned Commissionerate/Districts in approximately 9,700 cases." The affidavit is based on the letter. CCTNS refers to Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems. The court also remarked that while it could be argued that the data is incomplete, the affidavit coming from a senior officer of the Home Department must contain the correct data."It could be that the data is incomplete but then again the additional chief secretary in his personal affidavit has specifically indicated in paragraph 2 of his personal affidavit that the data is available on CCTNS, which data has been made available vide letter dated 22.01.2026, which has been annexed along with the personal affidavit and thus the personal affidavit coming at the level of a senior officer of the State, and that too of the Home Department, obviously must be containing the correct data," the court said. Noting that the data is shocking, the court remarked that the figures indicate a total lack of seriousness with which the authorities take the missing complaints lodged in the state. "Thus, in effect, a person who has gone missing in July, 2024 and a period of more than one and half years having lapsed, there is still no trace of him and the personal affidavit also indicates that the efforts started since December 2025 in order to trace out the missing person which itself speaks volumes about the working of the authorities." "We need not say anything more at this stage inasmuch as once no information is available about the missing person since last more than one-and-a-half years and police have also started investigating the matter after almost one-and-a- half year of the person having gone missing, itself indicates the total lack of seriousness with which the authorities take the missing complaints that are lodged by the residents of Uttar Pradesh," the court said.Expressing displeasure at the 'lackadaisical attitude' of the state authorities, the bench said that a larger public interest was now involved in the matter.During the hearing, the court referred to a circular issued by the state DGP, which mandates that CCTV footage be retained for only two to two-and-a-half months. The court said that if authorities do not act with alacrity on a missing person complaint, they would not have any CCTV data to rely on, and this would make the tracing of a missing person virtually impossible. "The matter is all the most serious considering the fact as has been noticed by us in the instant matter where the missing complaint report was lodged in July 2024 and sincere efforts to trace out the person have only started in December 2025, the alarming aspect is that as per the circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 20.06.2025 the CCTV footage is only to be preserved for two to two-and-half months, meaning thereby that in case the authorities do not act with alacrity on the missing complaint report then they would not have any CCTV data to fall back which would make tracing out of a missing person virtually impossible as has happened in the instant case and is also reflective from the CCTNS data." "Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that a larger public interest is now involved in the matter as such we direct that the instant writ petition be itself registered in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and be named as " In re- Missing persons in the State" and listed before the appropriate court in the next week on 05.02.2026," the court said."In the meanwhile, it would be open for the petitioner to file a reply to the personal affidavit which has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary. It would also be open for the petitioner to make a request to the concerned court for taking up the matter out of turn considering the large public interest," the court said in its order dated January 29....