Sanchayita Lahkar

The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan, held that every Aadhaar card holder has a fundamental right to seek correction of their personal information. The Court observed that the Aadhaar framework, introduced by the Central Government, places a duty on the Unique Identification Authority of India to make necessary alterations when supported by valid proof. Referring to the purpose of the Aadhaar Act, the Court noted that it was intended to ensure the effective delivery of welfare benefits to eligible citizens. In this case, the Court directed the Authority to amend the petitioner’s name and date of birth and instructed that her pension account be transferred without further delay.

The petitioner, a seventy-four-year-old widow, approached the Madras High Court seeking correction of errors in her Aadhaar card. Her name was misspelled, and her date of birth was recorded incorrectly. Following the death of her husband, who had served in the Indian Army for over two decades and was receiving a pension, she applied for transfer of the family pension. The process was halted because the details in her Aadhaar card did not match the official pension records.

Also Read: S. 149 IPC | Members Of Unlawful Assembly Vicariously Liable Once Common Object Proven, Even Without Direct Assault: Supreme Court

The petitioner first attempted to rectify the discrepancies through the E-Sevai Maiyam at Paramakudi and was then advised to approach the local post office. When these efforts failed, she sent a representation to the Regional Centre of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) at Bengaluru but received no response. She then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the UIDAI to correct her Aadhaar details based on her written request.

The respondents were the Director of UIDAI and the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). The petitioner relied on documentary evidence, including her late husband’s pension order, which contained her correct date of birth and was listed as an acceptable document under Schedule II of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.

During the hearing, statutory references were made to Section 31 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which permits alteration of demographic information, and Section 54, which empowers the Authority to issue regulations. The Court also discussed provisions of Section 7 concerning delivery of welfare benefits and Section 2(w) defining services. The submissions highlighted the procedural difficulties faced by individuals in updating Aadhaar information, particularly where the required facilities were limited to designated centres.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that the Aadhaar card has become an essential identity document and that inaccuracies in it can lead to denial of legitimate entitlements. The Court noted, “That Aadhaar Card has become an indispensable identity document is beyond dispute. One can be deprived of various benefits and services for want of a proper Aadhaar Card.”

Referring to the petitioner’s situation, the Court stated that her case illustrated how such errors could delay welfare benefits, observing, “The case of the petitioner is a classic instance. Her husband was an Ex-Serviceman. He was getting pension from the Indian Army. He passed away. Therefore, the family pension should have been disbursed to the petitioner from the succeeding month onwards. Though more than five months have elapsed, the transfer of pension account has not taken place. The sole reason is the discrepancy found in her Aadhaar Card.”

While interpreting Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act, the Court recorded, “I hold that the Authority is duty bound to make the corrections in the Aadhaar Card on being satisfied that the information set out therein is correct. In other words, the whole purpose of Section 31 is to ensure that one’s Aadhaar Card contains the correct details.” The Court further referred to the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016 and the documents recognized for proof of date of birth, stating that the petitioner’s pension order was a valid record for updating the Aadhaar database.

Addressing the procedural hardships faced by citizens, the Court noted the limited accessibility of Aadhaar Seva Kendras in Tamil Nadu. It recorded, “Quite a few members of the Bar stood up and complained that there is only one Aadhaar Seva Kendra for all the southern Districts of Tamil Nadu. The centre is located near the District Court… There are long queues outside the said centre everyday from early morning.”

The Court stated that demographic corrections should be possible at local enrolment centres, observing, “The facility to alter the demographic information must be available at the local level. Admittedly, there are 4056 Aadhaar enrolment centres in the State of Tamil Nadu. These centres can very well be equipped to cater to the requests for alteration of information envisaged under Section 31 of the Act.”

Also Read: Recusal Plea by Madras Race Club Rejected; Status Quo Modified for Public Works: Madras High Court

The Court concluded its reasoning by recording, “Every Aadhaar number holder has the fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime… when a request for alteration is made, the authority has the duty to carry out the same on being satisfied that the request is well founded.”

The court recorded: “She has to necessarily appear before the ASK, Madurai. Since the issue itself has been decided in this writ petition, all that the petitioner needs to do is to appear in person and produce this order copy. Thereupon, without much ado, the necessary alteration shall be carried out in the petitioner’s Aadhaar Card. Thereupon, the second respondent also shall expeditiously transfer the pension account in favour of the petitioner.”

The court concluded: “This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Kamesh.
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Gnanagurunathan, Central Government Standing Counsel.

Case Title: P. Pushpam v. The Director, UIDAI & Anr.
Case Number: W.P(MD) No. 29394 of 2025.
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan.