The demand for Aadhar OTP verification by a sports association is arbitrary and unjust, infringing on the right to privacy, and does not align with established age determination methods.

ORDER :

Aggrieved by the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in demanding Petitioner to share Aadhar OTP verification, petitioner is before this Court.

2. At the time of admission of Writ Petition, this Court, considering the material on record, passed interim order dated 06.11.2024 which is extracted hereunder:

“Notice before admission.

Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Aditya Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Government Pleader for Sports takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and seeks time to file counter affidavit.

Sri N. Gangadhar, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Cricket Association takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and seeks time to file counter affidavit.

List on 20.11.2024.

Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel draws attention of this Court to the recent judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of Circular No.08 of 2023 issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). In the said circular, it was clarified that while an Aadhar card may be used to establish identity, it does not serve as conclusive proof of date of birth. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further highlights the unreasonable nature of the respondents demand for Aadhar OTP verification. In view of the same, learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner possess other documents such as Passport, birth certificate, study certificates from 6th to 9th grade and Aadhar card which satisfy the BCCI's residency and identity verification requirement. However, ignoring these valid documents, respondent No.2 is insisting for Aadhar OTP verification which, according to the learned Senior Counsel is arbitrary and unjust and obstructing petitioner to participate in the tournament.

In view of the above noted clarification rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall be interim direction as prayed for

3. During the course of hearing, it is informed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao that Interim Order passed by this Court was not implemented by Respondent No. 2 to 4.

4. The basic contention of Petitioner is that he is aged 15 years and he played league matches conducted by Respondent No. 2 and represented Respondent No. 2 State team, participated in inter-state zonal matches for U-14 age group for the season 2022-23. He played Respondent No.2 leagues for the last three years and was the captain for U-14 Hyderabad team in South Zone Boys League Tournament held in Goa. He also was the top performer in U-16 inter-school and junior college tournament and scored a total of 444 runs and is consistently among the highest scores in district level tournaments. While matters stood thus, on 03.10.2024, at around 9:26 pm, the father of Petitioner received a call from the representative of Respondent No. 2 on his mobile number and demanded to provide One Time Password of Aadhar Card of his son which was sent to his phone asserting that it is necessary under the direction of senior officials of Respondent No. 2. In spite of refusal by the father of Petitioner, the said representative unauthorisedly accessed Petitioner's Aadhar details resulting in generating two OTPs through BT-AADHAR and on refusal to share the same, the representative of Respondent No.2 had threatened father of Petitioner about the negative consequences of his son’s future cricket career and threatened to obstruct Petitioner's participation in Respondent No. 2 tournaments, leagues and other BCCI tournaments. The father of Petitioner sent e mail to Respondent No. 4 on 04.10.2024, reporting the incidents of demand of OTP on 03.10.2024. The contents of e mail are very categorical and in brief amounts to raising objection for demanding OTP of Aadhar. The contents of e mail dated 04.10.2024 is extracted in Writ Affidavit. Admittedly, there is no response from Respondent No. 2 to e mail, thereby the father of Petitioner approached one of the Apex Council Member who, in tur