Kerala High Court Allows UIDAI To Compare Suspects’ Fingerprints To Those Available In Its Database In Double Murder Case Investigation

The matter pertained to the brutal assassination of a middle-aged couple in the year 2016 at their residence.

The Single Bench of Justice G. Girish held, “On the other hand, the only request of the investigating agency is that the UIDAI may compare the suspects’ fingerprints handed over to them with the fingerprints available in their database and to inform the investigating agency the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints were found matching with the above suspects’ fingerprints. Once the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints matched with the fingerprints collected from the crime scene are conveyed to the investigating agency collected from the crime scene are conveyed to the investigating agency, it is up to them to proceed further with the further steps of investigation pertaining to the collection of fingerprints from those persons and its comparison, which are permissible in criminal investigation. Therefore, the embargo contained in the second proviso to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act has no applicability in the present case.”

“The respondents 1 & 2 are hereby directed to compare the suspects’ fingerprints conveyed to them in binary format by the petitioner with the fingerprints stored in the database of UIDAI for Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu, and to inform the petitioner the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints are found matching with the suspects’ fingerprints”, it ordered.

Senior Govt. Pleader Ajju S. represented the Petitioner while Senior Panel Counsel Suvin R. Menon represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A middle-aged couple were brutally assassinated in the year 2016 at their residence at Kannukurissi, a small hamlet, coming under the limits of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad. The double murder was for robbing three sovereigns of gold and cash amounting to Rs 4,000. The investigations conducted by the local police and the Crime Branch led to the apprehension of one Rajendran, whose fingerprint matched the fingerprint collected from the scene of the crime. Though the investigating agency embarked upon a comparison of the six sample fingerprints collected from the scene of the crime with those of more than 1200 persons, they were unable to trace out the other offenders.

The investigating agency sought the assistance of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for comparing the suspects’ fingerprints with the Aadhaar database to find out whether the whereabouts of the persons whose fingerprints matched with it could be found out, but the UIDAI rejected the above request. Thus, the State of Kerala, represented by the Investigating Officer, filed the writ petition for a direction to the UIDAI to compare the above fingerprints with the fingerprint data of the said authority and to disclose the information so gathered to the Investigating Officer.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016, the Bench explained that the embargo contained under Sections 28 & 29 of the Aadhaar Act has no applicability in a case where disclosure of information is sought pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court. “However, the first proviso to the said Section mandates giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the Aadhaar number holder concerned before passing an order in the above regard. The second proviso forbids the disclosure of core biometric information”, it added.

The Bench noted that the Aadhaar Authority (UIDAI) was already heard in the writ petition through the Central Government Standing Counsel. According to the Bench, the other requirement to hear the Aadhaar number holder had no applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case since there was no need for the investigating agency to seek the help of UIDAI, if they were aware of the whereabouts of the persons whose identity information was sought to be collected. “Therefore, the above requirement of the said proviso could only be considered as redundant, in the facts and circumstances of this case”, it added.

Considering that the only request of the investigating agency was that the UIDAI may compare the suspects’ fingerprints handed over to them with the fingerprints available in their database, the Bench held that the embargo contained in the second proviso to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act would not be applicable in the present case.

The Bench also rejected the objection of the respondents against the technology constraints to match the static fingerprint collected through imprint of fingerprint in light of the contention of the Additional Director General of Prosecution that the officials from CDAC had already confirmed that the above hurdle could be overcome since the fingerprints in existing JPEG format could be successfully converted into the required binary format using their available software and the NAFIS system.

The Bench thus allowed the petition by directing the respondent Authortiy to compare the suspects’ fingerprints with the fingerprints stored in their database and to give information to the petitioner about the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints matched the suspects’ fingerprints.

Cause Title: The State of Kerala V. Govt. of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:78637)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Govt. Pleader Ajju.S., Public Prosecutor, Director General of Prosecution, Special Govt. Pleader P. Narayanan, Addl. State Public Prosecutor M.Muhammed Shafi

Respondent: Senior Panel Counsel Suvin R. Menon, Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina

Click here to read/download Order