Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ
Rohit Bandu Nikalje – Appellant
Versus
Regional Officer, UIDAI – Respondent
| 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
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
