Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, JJ.
The Deputy Director General & Faa Central Public Information – Appellant
Versus
Smt. P. Lavanya W/o.P.Dinesh Rao – Respondents
Writ Appeal No.100406 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 10-11-2023
RTI - Aadhaar Information Disclosure - Aadhaar Act 2016, Section 33 - The court discussed the restrictions on disclosure of Aadhaar information under the Aadhaar Act, the amendments made to strengthen privacy rights, and the requirement for a court order, not inferior to that of a High Court Judge, for disclosure of information. The court emphasized the right to privacy of the Aadhaar number holder and the non-delegable duty of hearing and decision conferred under Section 33.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information from UIDAI regarding her husband's Aadhaar Card to enforce a maintenance order. The application was rejected, leading to a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed the petition, setting aside the rejections and remitting the matter back to UIDAI.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Single Judge erred in directing UIDAI to issue notice and decide on the disclosure of information, as the Aadhaar Act requires such decisions to be made by a Court not inferior to that of a High Court Judge. The court remitted the matter to the Single Judge, emphasizing the need for the husband to be arrayed as a respondent and for appropriate provision in the applicable regime for the exercise of the right conferred under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the right to seek Aadhaar information under the RTI Act, the restrictions imposed by the Aadhaar Act, and the procedural requirements for disclosure of information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, the right to privacy of the Aadhaar number holder, and the non-delegable duty of hearing and decision conferred under Section 33.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was disposed of, setting aside the Single Judge's order and remitting the matter for reconsideration, with an emphasis on the husband being arrayed as a respondent and the need for appropriate provision in the applicable regime for the exercise of the right conferred under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.105614/2022.
2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience.
3. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge, who were the Deputy Director General FAA, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI as well as the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.105614/2022, whereby the petition filed by the wife came to be allowed setting aside the endorsements issued by the appellants/Authorities, rejecting the application of the wife seeking for information contained in the Aadhaar Card of her husband under Right to Information (RTI). Further direction was issued remitting the matter back to the third respondent-Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, to issue notice to the petitioner’s husband and hear him and thereafter reconsider the application filed by the petitioner/wife seeking information to enable her to enforce the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.312/2012.
4. Brief facts are that the petitioner had entered into wedlock with Sri. P. Dinesh Rao on 18.11.2005 and they have a female child. It is further stated that in connection with the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.312/2012 before the Family Court, Hubballi, which came to be allowed directing her husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/-to their daughter. It is made out that there were difficulties in enforcing the order of the Family Court, as whereabouts of her husband were not ascertainable as he was absconding. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act’) before the Public Information Officer (UIDAI) seeking information, in particular, the details of address of Sri. P. Dinesh Rao Parampalli as found in the Aadhar Card. In terms of the application filed, information sought for reads as under:-
Kindly provide me the AADHAR CARD COPY of said my husband by cross checking by his name in the data maintained your goodself having his name in the records as:
"Parampalli Dinesh Roa"
Or
"P.Dinesh Rao S/o P.Shripathi Rao"
?r
"Dinesh Rao Parrampalli"
Resident of Old-Alwal, Secundearabad, Telangana State 2) kindly provide me personal informations DATA FORM furnished by Applicant Mr. P. Dinesh Rao while obtaining AADHAR Card from your goodself office through regional office.
3) kindly provide me the MOBILE NUMBER entered in the DATA FORM furnished by Applicant Mr. P. Dinesh Rao while obtaining AADHAR Card from your goodself office through regional office”
5. The said application came to be rejected by an endorsement at Annexure-‘C’ dated 25.02.2021, stating that in terms of Section 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Act, 2016 (for short, ‘the Aadhaar Act’), there could be no disclosure of such information and matter has to be decided by a Judge of the High Court, amongst other grounds. The same was carried up in statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority, which once again confirmed the earlier order. Further, the petitioner filed second appeal, which also came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/wife preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition calling in question the correctness of the refusal to furnish information by the Authorities as sought by her in the RTI application. The petitioner had also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus seeking direction to the third respondent-Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer (UIDAI) to furnish the details and particulars of Aadhaar Card of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a court order, not inferior to that of a High Court Judge, for disclosure of Aadhaar information under Section 33 of the Aadhaa....
Aadhaar Act Section 28(5) with non-obstante clause prevails over RTI Act, prohibiting disclosure of confidential enrolment/update documents from CIDR, even to parent of minor, to protect privacy and ....
Demographic details and supporting documents of an individual's Aadhaar records are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the confidentiality provisions of the Aadha....
Own Aadhaar enrolment documents not 'information' under RTI; access to own data via online portals only; third-party Aadhaar data non-disclosable except by superior court order; Aadhaar Act prohibiti....
The court held that under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, UIDAI must provide Aadhaar details to aid in tracing missing trafficking victims, balancing privacy with the need for substantive justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
