1. Writ petition seeking Aadhaar details of impersonator to investigate property fraud committed using the petitioner's Aadhaar card. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(AP) 1444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
Shri Sitaramanjaneyulu Elaprolu S/o. Late E. Ramachandraiah - Appellant
Vs.
The Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2417 Of 2025
Decided On : 22-12-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. Jhansi
For the Respondent: G. Sai Narayana Rao Standing Counsel for Central Government
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. Jhansi
For the Respondent: G. Sai Narayana Rao Standing Counsel for Central Government
Identity information under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 is confidential and can only be disclosed by an order of a High Court under Section 33(1), typically upon application by an investigative agency, protecting privacy against direct requests from private parties.
Headnote:(A) Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 - Sections 28, 29 and 33 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disclosure of identity information - Authority is mandated to ensure security and confidentiality of identity information and authentication records - Core biometric information cannot be shared for any reason - Identity information may be shared only in accordance with the Act and regulations - Disclosure of identity information or authentication records is permitted if ordered by a court not inferior to that of a High Court, provided the Authority and the concerned Aadhaar holder are given an opportunity of hearing (Paras 10, 15, 17)
(B) Right to Privacy - While privacy is important, it is not absolute and may be overridden by the need for substantive justice in serious criminal matters; however, such disclosure must strictly adhere to the statutory framework provided under the law (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the disclosure of Aadhaar registration details of an individual who had allegedly impersonated the petitioner to fraudulently execute sale deeds for land. Despite the filing of a criminal case and the accused being reported as absconding, the authority refused to furnish the identity information, citing the confidentiality provisions of the Aadhaar Act and the third-party privacy protections under the Right to Information Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutory restrictions on sharing Aadhaar data are stringent. While Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act allows a High Court to order disclosure, such an order is typically the result of an application by a law enforcement agency. In the present case, there was no such application from the investigating officer to seek the necessary court order to facilitate the investigation.
Issues: Whether a private individual is legally entitled to request and receive Aadhaar card information regarding an impersonator from the authority without a formal application and subsequent court order initiated by an investigative agency.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 provides a narrow exception to the general rule of confidentiality of Aadhaar data. Disclosure of identity information or authentication records can only be made pursuant to an order from a High Court. Since the investigating agency had not filed an application for such an order, the court cannot direct the authority to furnish the information to the petitioner.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims right to Aadhaar information for investigation; respondents argue disclosure is barred by confidentiality provisions of the Aadhaar Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 16 )
3. Court acknowledges property fraud and impersonation but holds that police, not petitioner, must apply under Section 33(1) of Aadhaar Act for disclosure. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 )
4. Aadhaar identity information can be disclosed only by a High Court order under Section 33(1), upon application by an investigating agency, not a private party. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as petitioner cannot directly seek Aadhaar information; proper remedy is for police to obtain court order. (Para 18 )
6. Under what circumstances can Aadhaar identity information be disclosed?
Disclosure is permitted only by an order of a Judge of a High Court under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, after hearing UIDAI and the Aadhaar holder. (Para 9 , 10 , 16 , 17 )
7. Can a private individual obtain Aadhaar details of another person directly from UIDAI?
No. Only a law enforcement agency can apply for such information, and only after obtaining a court order under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
8. What information cannot be disclosed from Aadhaar records even by court order?
Core biometric information, such as fingerprints and iris scans, cannot be disclosed under any circumstances, including court orders under Section 33(1). (Para 10 , 15 )
The Court made the following: ORDER:
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
“…..to pass an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the order dated: 07.10.2024 passed in F.No.RO-HYD-26014/7/2024-RO-HYD by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in violation of provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to furnish the information requested by the petitioner pertaining to the Aadhaar Card Registration details bearing No.8422 1552 4835, impersonating the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent, who is an unknown person to the Petitioner through the petitioner's offline RTI Application vide Dy. No.1413/2023 dated: 24.11.2023 and pass…”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of approximately Ac.1-99.5 cents of land in Survey Nos.156/1 and 157/11 of Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal and Vishakhapatnam District. His name has been duly mutated in the revenue records.
4. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent, Sri Eelaprolu Seetaramanjeneyulu, impersonated the petitioner's Aadhaar card and fraudulently executed two registered sale deeds bearing document No.4078/2021 for an extent of Ac.1-85 cents and document No.4077/2021 for an extent of Ac.0-14.50 cents, both to the 4th respondent, on 07.07.2021.
5. On 13.07.2021, Pendurthi Police Station, Vishakhapatnam District, registered FIR No.430 of 2021 against 4th and 5th respondents, and an absconding charge sheet was filed against the 5th respondent before the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After obtaining the necessary permissions, the investigating officer filed a supplementary charge sheet. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No.174 of 2021 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam, seeking to declare the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4077 and 4078 of 2021, dated 07.07.2021, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. He also obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by filing I.A. No.278 of 2021 in O.S. No.174 of 2021 on 07.09.2021. Following a complaint by Sri E. Madhusudhan, the petitioner's son, the District Registrar and Inspector of the Registration Offices in Vishakhapatnam took cognizance and cancelled the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4077 and 4078 of 2021 on 02.11.2021. Challenging these cancellation orders, the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.26359 of 2023.
6. Based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 05.12.2023, the 2nd respondent, through proceedings No.RO-HYD- 27013/2/2022/RTI/Vol.1(E-7643), dated 04.01.2024, stated that information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, related to a third party, cannot be shared.
7. On 16.12.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police at Police Barracks, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam, requesting information regarding the 5th respondent. As no action was taken, the petitioner impleaded the investigating agency as a party to the writ petition to seek substantial justice. The Application was allowed by order dated 04.11.2025.
8. In the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in Kuldeo Sah v. State of Jharkhand and Others , (2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 771), the High Court of Jharkhand held that privacy is important, it is not absolute and can be overridden by the need for substantive justice in serious criminal matters like human trafficking. This case sets a precedent for using Aadhaar card data to trace missing persons in serious crimes, balancing privacy with investigative needs.
9. In State of Gujarat v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
