Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay at Goa Single Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes held that providing demographic details relating to proof of identity, proof of birth, and proof of address to the police does not amount to disclosing personal information. The Court, hearing an application by the State of Goa under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, directed the Unique Identification Authority of India to share the demographic information and enrolment-agency details of Israeli national Yaniv Benaim @ Atala, who had obtained an Aadhaar card despite lacking valid passport or visa. The disclosure was ordered to facilitate investigations under the NDPS and Foreigners Acts.

The matter arose from an application filed by the State of Goa through the Police Inspector of Anjuna Police Station seeking disclosure of demographic information, enrolment documents, and agency details submitted by Respondent No. 3, Mr. Yaniv Benaim @ Atala, an Israeli national. The application invoked Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, requesting the Court to allow UIDAI to disclose information regarding how an Aadhaar card had been issued to a foreigner lacking valid travel documents.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Sets Aside Kerala HC Judgment That Barred Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 as Enforceable Debts

According to the applicant, on 05.04.2025, the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji, registered FIR No. 12/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act following a raid where the respondent was allegedly found in possession of 50 grams of cocaine and 120 grams of charas. A subsequent FIR No. 61/2025 was registered at Anjuna Police Station under Section 7(1), 7(3)(iii) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for staying in India without valid passport or visa. During investigation, it was discovered that Respondent No. 3 possessed Aadhaar number 8368 4349 1046 issued on 11.08.2021, despite lacking lawful residence documents.

The State argued that Aadhaar can be issued only to residents of India under Section 3 of the Act and that Respondent No. 3, being a foreign national without valid passport or visa, was not entitled to enrolment. An email request to UIDAI for disclosure of enrolment documents was denied on 11.04.2025 due to statutory restrictions under Section 33. The State sought judicial intervention to obtain the necessary information for investigating both the NDPS case and the Foreigners Act case.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that disclosure of Aadhaar-related information would violate his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, he argued that biometric and demographic data are part of personal liberty and can only be disclosed if the strict threefold test of necessity, legality, and proportionality is satisfied.

An additional affidavit filed by the State on 14.07.2025 detailed the respondent’s prior criminal antecedents, including past convictions under the NDPS Act, the Foreigners Act, and his extradition from Peru after a CBI red corner notice. It also recorded that he had been issued a new Israeli passport on 20.05.2025 during the pendency of proceedings. The affidavit stated that multiple crimes were pending against him, including attempted murder under Sections 326 and 307 IPC, and stated instances of his attempted absconding.

The UIDAI submitted the enrolment form and supporting documents in sealed cover on the Court’s direction dated 09.06.2025. The Authority stated it would abide by the Court’s decision on disclosure.

The Court recorded 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 Court noted that the respondent was an Israeli national detained without valid travel documents at the time of arrest and had obtained Aadhaar despite not possessing a valid passport or visa. It stated: “Obviously therefore, the Respondent No.3 was not in possession of a valid passport or a valid visa to justify his stay in India as a resident, to qualify him for being granted an Aadhaar card.”

The judgment observed that Section 3 of the Act entitles only residents of India to enrolment and that the term “resident” in case of a foreigner must be understood in the context of valid residence established by a visa or travel document. “The Respondent No.3 admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued or his demographic information was collected.” The Court recorded that this fact raised serious issues concerning the validity of enrolment.

The Court also examined the sealed documents produced by UIDAI and noted that the respondent’s proof of identity, proof of address, and proof of birth were all certified by a single Gazetted Officer of the Government of Goa on UIDAI’s standard format. “The POI, POA and POB have all been certified by the same Gazetted Officer and are not based upon any other document belonging to the Respondent No.3 to substantiate these three parameters.” The Court stated that disclosure of these records would not result in exposure of personal documents but only certificates issued by a government officer.

It stated: “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 recorded that given the respondent’s criminal record and pending investigations under NDPS and Foreigners laws, the demographic information sought was directly relevant to determine the legality of the Aadhaar card issued. It concluded that the applicant had made out a case for disclosure under Section 33(1).

Justice Menezes directed: “The Unique Identification Authority of India (Respondent No.1) shall provide to the Applicant the demographic information of Respondent No.3 (which has been placed under sealed cover in the record of this Court on 19.06.2025), submitted by the Respondent No.3 as proof of the demographic information.”

Also Read: Bombay HC: Building Clearances Illegal Without Sewerage Systems; Orders Improvement Committee as Deficient Amenities Breach Fundamental Rights

“The Respondent No.1 Authority shall also provide the details of the Enrolment Agency authorized by it, through which the enrolment of the Respondent No.3 to the Aadhaar number 8368 4349 1046 came to be done within two weeks from the passing of this order.”

“The sealed envelope shall be returned to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 by the Registry of this Court. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Applicant: Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor

For Respondents: Mr. Omkar Bhave, Advocate, Shri Raviraj Chodankar, Counsel, Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate

Case Title: State of Goa v. UIDAI & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-GOA:1794

Case Number: Criminal Application (Main) No. 13 of 2025

Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes