The Madras High Court has recently ordered the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to furnish the Aadhar details of certain members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), who stand accused of murder and instigating terror.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) could advance its investigation only upon obtaining the requisite details. Consequently, he directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide the information requested by the agency.

The accused individuals in the case were identified as active members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its political wing, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). They were implicated in the fatal assault on Ramalingam, leading to his demise, thereby instilling fear among a section of the populace. Given that the accused had allegedly forged Aadhar cards as part of their criminal activities, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) sought access to the Aadhar details for investigative purposes.

The Agency informed the court that when they requested the details, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was unwilling to provide the information and documents, citing Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act along with Regulation 3 of the Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016.

In response, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) argued that according to the legal provisions, disclosure of the information could only occur following an opportunity for a hearing based on an order from the High Court. Additionally, citing the Puttasamy judgment, the UIDAI contended that disclosing such information would infringe upon the individual's right to privacy.

Furthermore, emphasizing that the information stored in Aadhaar was confidential, UIDAI argued that they were unable to disclose the information without a specific order from the court.

The court acknowledged that the matter had been addressed in previous court orders, wherein it was determined that the refusal to provide information could impede the proper investigative process of a serious crime, leading to its potential stagnation.

In the present case as well, the court recognized that for the investigation to progress effectively, the agency required access to the pertinent information and documents. Consequently, the court directed UIDAI to provide the necessary details as per the agency's request.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.R.Karthikeyan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy CGC

Case Title: Union of India v The Deputy Director, UIDAI

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.899 of 2024