Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
B. Ramapriya – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar (Administration), Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 25.03.2025, this Court passed the following order:
1. The Unique Identification Authority of India [UIDAI], Represented by its Chairman, Khanija Bhawan, No.49, III Floor, South Wing, Race Course Road, Bengaluru - 560 001, is suo motu added as seventh respondent in the writ petition.
2. Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the impleaded seventh respondent. Notice to respondents 4 to 6 returnable by 15.04.2025. Private notice is also permitted.
3. The specific ground that has been taken by the petitioner is that the petitioner was impersonated by one Ramapriya and she had executed a fraudulent sale deed bearing Document No.905 of 2024 in favour of the sixth respondent with respect to the subject property that belonged to the petitioner, by producing a fake Aadhaar card. Based on the same, the sixth respondent colluded with the fifth respondent and managed to add his name in the TSLR. The petitioner after coming to know of the same, filed a protest petition before the second respondent with a request no
B.RAMAPRIYA vs THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12018: No keywords or phrases (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, questioned, overruled, reversed, abrogated) indicating any judicial treatment by subsequent decisions are present in the provided text. The description focuses solely on factual details of a sale deed, impersonation claim, and property specifics, with no reference to how this case has been treated.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 129: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment of this case itself by subsequent decisions are present. The text is a detailed summary of the Aadhaar judgment (including majority, dissenting, and concurring opinions), which internally overrules other named cases ("Decisions in Mohd Saeed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar are overruled"), but provides no information on the treatment of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 2018 7 Supreme 129 by later cases. Treatment of this case is therefore unclear based on the provided information.
The court found that a sale deed executed using a fake identity is illegal and declared it non est, emphasizing the importance of verified identity in property transactions under the Aadhaar Act.
Disclosure of identity information under the Aadhaar Act requires due process and a hearing, especially in cases involving fraud and impersonation, safeguarding individual privacy rights.
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....
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.
Filing an FIR based on civil disputes without evidence of criminality is an abuse of process; mere misrepresentation for Aadhaar does not constitute an offence under the relevant legal provisions.
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
