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.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. These appeals originally have been filed under Section 21(4) for a direction for release of the appellants from judicial custody who have been taken into custody for the offence under Section 370/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. We, after calling the case diary, have decided the case on merit and rejected the prayer for bail of the appellants.

3. One of the main reasons for rejection of the prayer for bail of the appellants was that the trafficked minor victims had not been traced out even though serious efforts having been said to be taken even by constituting special investigating teams.

4. This Court has called upon the SPs of the concerned districts, taking into consideration the fact that the victim has not been recovered as yet.

5. Learned counsel representing the State, in course of argument, had submitted that all possible efforts have been taken to trace out the victim but when they have not found any further clue, have taken endeavour to get the details of Aadhar Card of the victim by making correspondences to the authority, i.e., UIDAI, through e-mail/.

6. This Court, on the prayer being made by the learned State counsel, has impleaded the authority, i.e., UIDAI, as party respondent to the present proceeding and had issued notice.

7. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has appeared on behalf of the authority, UIDAI.

8. He has filed affidavits. The ground has been taken by the authority, UIDAI, that in view of the provision of Section 33(1) of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 2016), the details of Aadhar Care of any individual can be supplied but only under the direction of the High Court.

9.It has been submitted by making reference of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy (retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 1 SCC 1 wherein the validity of Section 33(1) and 33(2) of the Act, 2016 has been held to be valid.

10. It has been stated in the affidavit that save and except the procedure as established under the statutory command as under Section 33(1) of the Act, 2016, the details of information of Aadhar Card can be provided to the investigating agency but the requirement is two folds that regular application is to be made to the authority, UIDAI or on direction passed by the High Court in view of the amendment inserted in the provision of 33(1) of the Act, 2016 from 25.07.2019 whereby and whereunder amendment has been inserted to the effect that such information can be supplied by the authority on the direction passed by the High Court.

11. This Court, after considering the stand inter alia taken by the authority, UIDAI, has passed order on 11.02.2025 wherein observation has been made that why the steps are not being taken as provided under Section 33 (2) of the Act, 2016.

12. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has submitted that so far as taking recourse within the fold of Section 33(2) of the Act, 2016 is concerned, as per requirement the investigating agency is to make an application before the authorized authority as per the order dated 29.12.2023 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India whereby and whereunder while exercising the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016), the Central Government has authorized the Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as the Officer specially authorized for the purposes of issue of directions under the said sub-section.

13. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the authority, UIDAI, and in view of the observation as has been expressed by this Court in the order 17.12.2024 and 11.02.2025 wherein the concern has been shown in pa