Disclosure Of Demographic Details Not Breach Of Privacy; Bombay High Court Directs UIDAI To Furnish Details Of An Israeli National Found Possessing Aadhar Card
The High Court held that allowing copies of Form 1 containing proof of identity, proof of address and proof of birth certified by a Gazetted Officer does not amount to disclosure of any personal document of the Aadhaar holder.
Justice Valmiki Menezes, Bombay High Court, Goa
The Bombay High Court allowed an application filed by the State of Goa under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, seeking disclosure of demographic information of an Israeli national who had obtained an Aadhaar card despite not possessing a valid passport or visa, holding that disclosure of Form 1 containing demographic details, all certified by a Gazetted Officer, would not violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a criminal application filed in connection with investigations arising from FIRs under the NDPS Act and the Foreigners Act. It was alleged that the accused was found in possession of contraband and had been staying in India without valid travel documents, yet was found to have an Aadhar Card issued in 2021.
A Bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes, while deciding the matter, observed that, “…disclosure of the information which is by allowing copies of Form 1 for POI, POA and POB would therefore not result in disclosing any personal document or personal information of the Respondent No.3, which he seeks protection of.”
The Court further clarified that the Proof of Identity, Proof of Address and Proof of Birth had all been certified by a Gazetted Officer in the standard UIDAI format and were not based on any personal documents belonging to the respondent.
S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor, appeared for the applicant-State, while Advocate Omkar Bhave represented the UIDAI.
Background
An FIR was registered against the accused under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics. A separate FIR under the Foreigners Act and Foreigners Order was also filed, as the accused was residing in India without valid travel documents. During the investigation, it was discovered that he held an Aadhaar card issued in 2021 despite being ineligible.
The State, accordingly, sought disclosure of the documents submitted for enrolment, arguing that such disclosure was vital to investigate how a foreign national without valid residency obtained an Aadhaar card.
UIDAI had initially declined the disclosure of information, citing Section 33 of the Act. The High Court then called for the records in a sealed cover. The accused, however, opposed the disclosure, invoking the right to privacy as upheld in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
Court’s Observations
The Bombay High Court, while examining the statutory scheme under Sections 28, 29 and 33 of the Aadhaar Act, held that while biometric data enjoys absolute protection, Section 33 empowers the High Court to order disclosure of demographic information after hearing the parties. The Bench, while making these observations, remarked that “…this provision therefore empowers this Court to disclose, if a case has been made out by the Applicant, all information including identity information and authentication records of the Respondent No.3, which would include the documents, which form the basis on which the Aadhaar card was granted.”
The Bench, while underscoring that Aadhaar is meant only for residents of India, observed that the accused had no valid visa or passport at the relevant time, and that the issuance of an Aadhaar card therefore warranted investigation.
Further, taking note of the previous criminal antecedents of the accused, the Bench observed that “in the background of the various crimes of which the Respondent No.3 has been convicted, or is under trial, and is now being investigated, more so the investigation into the circumstances under which the Respondent No.3 obtained an Aadhaar card, being undertaken in Crime No.61/2025 (for offences under Foreigners Order/Foreigners Act) that the details sought are of relevance.”
The Court therefore clarified that the demographic documents submitted, certificates issued by a Gazetted Officer, did not amount to disclosure of personal records. Rather, they formed part of the regulatory framework under UIDAI for establishing identity, address and date of birth.
Conclusion
Allowing the application, the Bombay High Court directed UIDAI to provide the demographic information contained in Form 1 and details of the enrolment agency that had processed the Aadhaar application, holding that such disclosure was necessary for the ongoing investigation and did not breach constitutional guarantees of privacy.
Cause Title: State Of Goa Versus Unique Identification Authority Of India, Government of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1794)
Appearances
Petitioner: S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor
Respondents: Advocate Omkar Bhave