On Tuesday, the Supreme Court examined a public interest litigation seeking structural reforms to address the growing problem of missing and trafficked children. The petition highlights the urgent need for scientific identification mechanisms and stronger institutional coordination to curb illegal adoptions and ensure proper rehabilitation.
The PIL draws attention to the alarming number of children who go missing or are trafficked across the country, often slipping through gaps in the existing legal and administrative framework. It proposes the establishment of a National DNA and Biometric Identification System to facilitate accurate identification and reunification of such children with their families.
The plea further seeks mandatory DNA profiling subject to safeguards and consent of unidentified rescued children and biological parents of missing children. It also calls for the integration of multiple child protection databases, including police records, shelter homes, Child Welfare Committees, and Anti-Human Trafficking Units, into a unified and real-time national system.
Additionally, the Petition urges the creation of dedicated national and state-level task forces for coordinated action, along with a standardised procedure governing tracing, testing, rehabilitation, and long-term monitoring of rescued children. A key prayer also includes mandatory DNA verification before completing any adoption process to prevent illegal trafficking or identity fraud.
The counsel for the Petitioner contends that the absence of a uniform, scientific identification mechanism has led to serious lapses in tracing missing children and has enabled illegal adoption networks to flourish. It is argued that fragmented databases and lack of inter-agency coordination further aggravate the problem, resulting in delayed or failed reunifications.
On the other hand, while no detailed rebuttal was recorded at this stage, the Court indicated that the issue involves multiple stakeholders and complex policy considerations, requiring a carefully structured and practical solution rather than broad directions alone.
The Bench acknowledged the sensitivity and significance of the issue but expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of a concrete roadmap. The Court emphasized that merely highlighting the problem would not suffice and called upon the petitioner to assist with workable solutions. It suggested that a collaborative framework involving different institutions must be developed to effectively address the issue.
The Supreme Court did not pass any final directions at this stage. Instead, it directed the petitioner to refine the plea by proposing a comprehensive framework outlining practical solutions, mechanisms for institutional coordination, and implementation strategies. The matter is expected to be taken up again after such inputs are placed before the Court.
Source Link
Picture Source :