SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3754

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ
Rohit Bandu Nikalje – Appellant
Versus
Regional Officer, UIDAI – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 10771 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Harshada Shirsath a/w Mr. Ramaprasad Deore i/b. Mr. Swaraj Sabale
For the Respondents: Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP, Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha, Ms. Gargi Warunjikar

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 identity services.

Headnote:(A) Aadhaar Act, 2016 - Sections 23 and 31 - Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2016 - Regulations 28 and 31 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Biometric mismatch leading to suspension/cancellation of records - No fraud or impersonation by petitioners who were minors at initial enrollment - Authorities directed to accept and process fresh enrollment applications within four weeks without objection based solely on prior deactivation/omission; no insistence on extraneous documents; general directions for citizen-centric handling of biometric irregularities including written status communication and facilitation mechanisms. (Paras 9, 11, 17, 19, 26)

(B) Administrative law - Statutory authorities dealing with identity credentials must avoid shifting stands and indefinite limbo; provide clear rectification pathways per regulations for deactivation/omission due to anomalous biometrics; balance database integrity with procedural fairness and access to services. (Paras 12, 16, 25)

Facts of the case:
Twin brothers issued identity cards as minors; update requests rejected due to biometric mismatch; advised variously to cancel, then update, then fresh enroll; repeated visits yielded no resolution; provisional admissions and insurance affected.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners to submit fresh applications within fifteen days; authorities to process within four weeks, issue fresh cards if compliant; future cases to receive written guidance, expeditious processing, no repeated visits without status update.

Issues: Whether writ of mandamus lies to direct biometric update or fresh enrollment despite mismatch; propriety of inconsistent administrative responses leaving residents remediless.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory framework mandates remedial mechanisms for biometric defects without fraud; authorities cannot deny time-bound rectification; Article 226 empowers directions for fair, accountable exercise of statutory functions maintaining identity integrity alongside constitutional reasonableness. Result : Writ petition disposed with directions; rule made absolute in terms indicated; no costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioners denied aadhaar update due to biometric mismatch (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. authorities' inconsistent instructions prejudice genuine applicants (Para 6 , 7)
3. suspension mandates fresh enrollment with safeguards (Para 8)
4. statutory scheme prohibits indefinite administrative limbo (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. aadhaar framework requires procedural fairness and rectification (Para 13 , 14 , 24)
6. mandamus compels time-bound statutory exercise (Para 15 , 16)
7. fresh enrollment balances integrity and access rights (Para 17 , 18)
8. direct time-bound processing of fresh applications (Para 19 , 20)
9. citizen-centric implementation prevents exclusion hardships (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 25)
10. mandate clear guidance for biometric irregularities (Para 26)
11. rule absolute facilitates lawful rectification (Para 27 , 28)

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER HITEN. S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, and the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The Petitioners, who are twin brothers, have invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith update the biometric details linked with Aadhaar Card Nos. 6123 2462 3213 and 4118 7935 0468, or, in the alternative, to issue fresh Aadhaar cards to them without further delay. The Petitioners’ case is that they were issued Aadhaar cards in the year 2012 when they were minors, after submission of the requisite documents and biometric information. According to them, when they attained the relevant age and were required to update their biometrics, they approached the concerned authorities in the year 2022 and submitted the necessary documents and biometric data. However, despite compliance on their part, the updated Aadhaar cards were not issued.

4. The Petitioners state that upon inquiry with the UIDAI helpline, they were informed that their update request had been rejected on account of mismatch in biometrics. They thereafter raised several grievances on the UIDAI portal and were ultimately asked to personally visit the Regional Office at Mumbai. The Petitioners visited the Regional Office on 23rd April, 2024, where they were informed that their biometric update request was rejected because of biometric mismatch. They were advised to apply for cancellation of the existing Aadhaar numbers and thereafter apply for fresh enrollment. Acting upon this advice, they submitted consent forms for cancellation and waited for communication from the Respondent authorities. When no communication was received, they again visited the Regional Office on 30th May, 2024, and were then informed that, in view of a new circular, the earlier process for cancellation had been revoked and that they would now be required to update the existing Aadhaar numbers with corrected biometrics.

5. The Petitioners contend that they thereafter consented to correction and updation of their existing Aadhaar records. They were informed that their request had been forwarded to the competent office and that necessary action would be taken. However, despite repeated personal visits on 9th June, 2024, and 2nd September, 2024, they were merely told that the matter was under process. According to the Petitioners, this administrative uncertainty has caused them serious prejudice. They are students pursuing higher education; Aadhaar is being insisted upon for admissions, insurance, identity verification and allied purposes. It is stated that their admissions are provisional and may be affected for want of valid Aadhaar details. Petitioner No. 2, who is pursuing sporting activity in horse riding, also requires insurance coverage, which has allegedly been withheld for want of a valid Aadhaar number.

6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top