logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 2170 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Case No : Writ Petition No. 477 of 2020
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. GADKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA
Parties : The State of Maharashtra, (Through Senior Police Inspector, APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai) Versus Unique Identification Authority of India, through its Manager, Regional Office, Mumbai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J.P. Yagnik APP. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Supriya Kak, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 10-08-2026
Head Note :-
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial & Other Subsidies, Benefits & Services) Act, 2016 - Section 33(1) -
Judgment :-

Oral Judgment:

A.S. Gadkari, J.

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to disclose information, including identity information and the authentication record of Respondent No.3, as per the Provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2019, for the purpose of further investigation of C.R. No.4 of 2019 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai.

2) Heard Mr. Yagnik learned APP for the Petitioner-State and Ms. Kak, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3) It is the case of the Petitioner that, it received a complaint from xxx that the Respondent No.3 is a Bangladeshi citizen illegally residing in India under the assumed name xxx. Accordingly, an inquiry was undertaken, whereby it was discovered that the original name of xxx was in fact xxx a Bangladeshi citizen. Upon a further inquiry, when Respondent No.3 was called upon to produce documents to prove her Indian citizenship, she failed to produce any cogent and substantial documentary evidence. It was further revealed that, the Respondent No.3, a Bangladeshi National, had entered the Indian territory illegally from Bangladesh and was residing in India unlawfully.

                    3.1) Further inquiry revealed that, the Respondent No.3 has procured various documents from Indian Authorities, including an Aadhaar Card xxx to establish herself as an Indian citizen under the name xxx.

4) In course of further investigation of the said crime, the police Authorities now require information regarding the documents submitted by Respondent No.3 to the Aadhaar Authority while seeking to obtain the said Aadhaar Card in her name xxx.

Pertinently, Section 29 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2019, prohibits the Authorities from disclosing information furnished by any person for obtaining an Aadhaar Card. However, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2019, carves out an exception permitting the High Court to direct the Aadhaar Authority to disclose such information to any Government Agency or other person.

5) We have come across with various cases where the Bangladeshi citizens, having infiltrated India’s border and entered Indian territory, have adopted fake names and concealed their original identity by procuring documents such as Pan Card, Ration Card and other documents required to obtain an Aadhaar Card, thereby assuming Indian citizenship.

                    5.1) Unavailability of information and documents from Respondent No.1 on account of the prohibition under Section 29 of the Aadhar Act, has created impediments for the Investigating Agency, causing delay and granting undue advantage to infiltrators to continue residing in India despite being foreign nationals. Investigating Agencies can unearth those manufacturing these bogus or forged documents only by ascertaining the nature of documents and the areas from which they were procured. It appears that Aadhar cards obtained by foreign nationals are based on documents that appear to be genuine but are, in fact, forged, fabricated, bogus or fraudulently obtained. It is therefore imperative for all the Government agencies to act in concert, not only to prevent infiltration of Indian borders but also trace these foreign nationals who either hold fake, forged or fabricated Aadhar Cards or have obtained genuine Aadhar cards on the basis of fake or forged or fabricated documents.

6) As noted in our Judgment dated 27th July, 2026, passed in Writ Petition No.4406 of 2019, we earnestly request all the Government Authorities including the Respondent No.1, to co-ordinate and promptly verify documents when the investigating agency has reasons to believe that a person has infiltrated the border of India and continues to reside here having procured Aadhar Card on the basis of fake bogus, or fabricated documents, or has forged or fabricated an Aadhar Card by illegal means.

The concerned Government authorities must consider deporting such persons immediately and adopt all necessary means to prevent their re-entry into India, whether through established channels or any other dubious or illegal method.

7) In the aforesaid circumstances, we hereby direct the Respondent No.1 to provide all the necessary information and documents submitted by the Respondent No.3 while obtaining her Aadhaar Card xxx to enable the Investigating Agency, or any other agencies conducting investigation in C.R. No.4 of 2019 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for the purpose of investigation and for submission before the Competent jurisdictional Court trying the said offence.

The said documents be handed over to the Investigating Officer and/or such other Officer duly appointed for investigating C.R. No.4 of 2019 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.

8) Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

 
  CDJLawJournal