SC Seeks Gurugram CP Affidavit in Manchanda Case

GURUGRAM: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a personal affidavit from the city's Commissioner of Police explaining why recovery of a missing Delhi resident's body in Gurugram was not reflected on the national Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems portal.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan examined the murder of Yuvraj Singh Manchanda and the cremation of his remains while a missing-person process was still unfolding across Delhi and Haryana. The court asked why details of the body recovery did not appear on CCTNS.

What the court asked

The matter came up in proceedings on pan-India guidelines for a standard operating procedure to track missing persons. In August the court had directed states and Union territories to register an FIR for any missing person, irrespective of age or gender, and had asked the Centre to integrate relevant portals for interstate coordination.

Referring to the Manchanda facts, the bench asked why no FIR was registered as per that order when only a diary entry was initially made. Court-appointed committee chair Justice (retd) Mukta Gupta told the court that Delhi and Haryana police would file reports before the next hearing, indicated around 5 October.

According to the preliminary account placed before the court, Manchanda went missing on 6 September. An FIR was registered on 11 September after the family approached Delhi police. Gurugram Police recovered the body three days later, but details were not uploaded on CCTNS. Identity confirmation came on 14 September, by which time the body had already been cremated. Gupta noted that information had been put on Zipnet, which covers NCR stations, rather than on CCTNS, which is accessible nationwide.

The bench said the facts made portal integration more necessary and wanted to know from Haryana why missing-person information was not put on the central portal. The court's directions here concern police documentation and coordination. Separate criminal proceedings into the alleged murder, including claims that an ex-colleague and partner were involved and that Manchanda's phone was used to mislead the family, remain with investigating agencies and courts.

For Gurugram residents, the affidavit order puts the police chief on record about how body recoveries and missing-person alerts move between Zipnet and CCTNS. Interstate cases often stall when one force logs a diary entry and another recovers a body without a shared digital trail. The Supreme Court has tied this episode to the larger SOP exercise rather than deciding guilt in the murder probe.