IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
The State by Police Inspector, Byatarayanapura Police Station – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), New Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25182 of 2024
Decided On : 18-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for identity verification under aadhaar act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. confidentiality and security of aadhaar information. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. limitations of biometric data usage for deceased. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial authority requirement for disclosure orders. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“DIRECT the 2nd Respondent to disclose the information with regard to the victim deceased as provided under Section 33 of the Aadhar Act and amendment thereto as per Section 33(1) of the Aadhar Act 2016 as [amended by the Aadhar and other laws (Amendment) Act 2019 (No.14/2019), dated 07/02/2024 vide Annexure-D, in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner is the Byatarayanapura Police Station represented by the Police Inspector, who is undertaking an investigation in Crime No.267/2023, registered for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein a dead body of woman lying in a canal, aged about 25 to 30 years, was found without any identification. The investigation could not proceed further on account of the identity of the deceased not being capable of verification. In that view of the matter, the Station House Officer/Investigating Officer had made out an application to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for matching the fingerprint of the deceased with the database of respondent No.2 to ascertain the identity of the deceased.
3. The said request was declined by letter dated 07.02.2024 on the ground that unless there is an order passed by a court not inferior to a Judge of the High Court, no details under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, could be made available. It is in that background that the petitioner/Investigating Officer is before this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Notice having been ordered, Shri.Shanti Bhushan H, learned DSGI has entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Today he has filed an affidavit of the Deputy Director at the UIDAI, Regional Office, Bangalore, which reads as under:
"I, Priya Sreekumar D/o Late Mr. K.B.Nair, aged 54 years, working as Deputy Director at Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Regional Office (RO), Bengaluru, having office at 3rd Floor, South Wing, Khanija Bhavan, Racecourse Road, Bengaluru-560001 do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. It is submitted that I am aware about the facts and circumstances of the instant case on the basis of the records maintained by the Answering Respondent in its usual course of business. It is further submitted that I am authorized by the Answering Respondent and being aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case and I am competent to swear this Affidavit in official capacity. The Answering Respondent crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to file a detailed Affidavit at a later stage in the present matter or as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court.
2. At the outset, I deny all and singular averments, allegations and submissions made in the petition, save and except the ones which are in conformity with the facts stated therein. I submit that non-denial of any averment specifically may not amount to admissions on my part.
3. It is submitted that the Unique Identification Authority of India ("UIDAI"), is a statutory body established under the provisions of the aforesaid Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (as amended) by the Government of India under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology vide it's notification dated 12th July, 2016. I say that the said Act was then amended through the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 vide a Govt. of India, Notification No. 14 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019 ("Aadhaar Act").
4. It is submitted that the objective of the Aadhaar Act is to empower residents of India with a unique identity and digital platform only fo
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs. Union of India
UIDAI cannot disclose biometric information without a valid court order, and identification requires live biometric data as per privacy and security frameworks established under the Aadhar Act.
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.
Authorities must facilitate time-bound fresh Aadhaar enrollment for biometric mismatches absent fraud, providing clear written remedies and avoiding administrative uncertainty to ensure access to ide....
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 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....
The court ruled that in habeas corpus cases, disclosure of personal data, such as Aadhaar information, may be permitted without prior consent due to urgency, provided confidentiality is maintained.
Mandatory Aadhar-based facial recognition attendance is unconstitutional as it violates the right to privacy under Articles 14, 19, and 21 and must be voluntary as per the Aadhar Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.