High Courts Can Direct UIDAI to Share Aadhaar Authentication Location with Police Under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act | Karnataka High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to share with the Hubballi-Dharwad Police the location details of the Aadhaar card usage of a missing person, the petitioner’s son, to aid the ongoing investigation. The Court, invoking Section 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, held that while core biometric data remains protected, identity-related authentication records may be disclosed under a High Court order. The case concerned tracing a missing individual whose Aadhaar was reportedly used after his disappearance.
The petitioner, Sri. Krishnamurthy, approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking a writ of mandamus against the UIDAI Regional Office and the Commissioner of Police, Hubli-Dharwad. He sought directions compelling UIDAI to furnish the authentication history and transaction details of his missing son’s Aadhaar card from December 20, 2023, to the present date.
According to the records, the petitioner’s elder son, Vijay Krishnamurthy Sangeet, had been undergoing apprenticeship at Trillium Technological Company in 2019 when he went missing on December 19, 2019. A missing complaint was lodged on December 20, 2019, leading to the registration of FIR in Crime No. 73/2019 at Hubballi Gokul Road Police Station. Despite efforts by both the petitioner and respondent No.2 (the Commissioner of Police), the missing person could not be traced.
On June 20, 2023, the petitioner learned that his son’s Aadhaar card had been used for authentication. He informed the investigating authorities, who sought Aadhaar authentication records from UIDAI. However, UIDAI did not provide the information. The petitioner subsequently filed the present writ petition to compel disclosure of the Aadhaar usage records.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the requested authentication history was vital for tracing the missing person, as it could reveal the location where the Aadhaar card was used. Reference was made to the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, particularly restrictions under Chapter VI, which protect privacy but allow disclosure where necessary for investigation.
Counsel for respondent No.1 (UIDAI) contended that Aadhaar-related information was confidential and protected under the right to privacy as affirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Therefore, it could not be shared, even with investigating officers. Respondent No.2, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the police could not proceed with investigation without access to Aadhaar authentication records, as it was the only means to determine whether the missing individual himself or another person was using the Aadhaar card.
The Court recorded: “A perusal of Subsection (1) of Section 29 of Act of 2016 indicates that there is a complete restriction on sharing of core biometric information. Further Subsection (2) of Section 29 provides for identity information other than core biometric information to be shared in accordance with the provisions of the Act and any such manner as has been specified by the regulation.”
The Court noted that identity information under Section 2(n) included Aadhaar number, biometric information, and demographic information. It stated: “Thus, there is no absolute embargo on the disclosure of information in relation to Aadhaar in terms of Section 29.” The judgment further distinguished between core biometric information and other identity information, clarifying that core biometrics such as fingerprints and iris scans could not be shared, while demographic details and authentication records could be disclosed in certain circumstances.
Referring to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, the Court recorded: “Section 33 makes it clear that nothing contained in Subsection (2) or (5) of Section 28 or Subsection (2) of Section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court.” The Court observed that it was empowered to direct disclosure, provided UIDAI was heard before such an order.
The Court acknowledged UIDAI’s objection, summarising: “The submission of respondent No.1 is only that on account of Aadhaar details being personal information and private data, the same cannot be shared.” However, it held that the case involved a missing person where the Aadhaar card had admittedly been used, and the investigation could not proceed without knowing whether the card was used by the missing individual or by another person.
Justice Govindaraj observed: “When there is no such information made available with the jurisdictional police authorities, there is no possibility of such investigation being proceeded with.” He concluded that Section 33 empowered the Court to direct UIDAI to share the required authentication details with the investigating agency.
Justice Govindaraj directed: “Respondent No.1 – UIDAI is directed to furnish to respondent No.2 only the details of location of the usage of Aadhaar card of the missing son of the Petitioner from the time of filing of the missing complaint till date within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to facilitate the investigation by respondent No.2.”
“It is made clear that apart from the location of usage, no other details shall be furnished, the Respondent No.2 shall not share such details/information with anyone else, apart from that required for the purposes of investigation.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. M.B. Kanavi, Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Sri. Krishnamurthy v. The Director, UIDAI Regional Office & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:12971
Case Number: WP No. 105596 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
