(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 07.10.2024 passed in F.No.RO-HYD-26014/7/2024-RO-HYD by the 3rd Respondent as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in violation of provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to furnish the information requested by the petitioner pertaining to the Aadhaar Card Registration details bearing No.8422 1552 4835, impersonating the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent, who is an unknown person to the Petitioner through the petitioner's offline RTI Application vide Dy. No. 1413/2023 dated 24.11.2023.

IA No.1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to suspend the validity of the Aadhaar card bearing No. 8422 1552 4835, to prevent further misuse, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

IA No.2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 017, as Respondent No.6 and the Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 531 173, as Respondent No.7 in the present Writ Petition.

IA No.3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of affidavit signatures obtained on one side instead of both sides in connection with implead petition filed WP No.2417 of 2025.)

1. The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

                  “…..to pass an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the order dated: 07.10.2024 passed in F.No.RO-HYD-26014/7/2024-RO-HYD by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and in violation of provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to furnish the information requested by the petitioner pertaining to the Aadhaar Card Registration details bearing No.8422 1552 4835, impersonating the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent, who is an unknown person to the Petitioner through the petitioner's offline RTI Application vide Dy. No. 1413/2023 dated: 24.11.2023 and pass…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of approximately Ac.1-99.5 cents of land in Survey Nos.156/1 and 157/11 of Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal and Vishakhapatnam District. His name has been duly mutated in the revenue records.

4. The petitioner contends that the 5th respondent, Sri Eelaprolu Seetaramanjeneyulu, impersonated the petitioner's Aadhaar card and fraudulently executed two registered sale deeds bearing document No.4078/2021 for an extent of Ac.1-85 cents and document No.4077/2021 for an extent of Ac.0-14.50 cents, both to the 4th respondent, on 07.07.2021.

5. On 13.07.2021, Pendurthi Police Station, Vishakhapatnam District, registered FIR No.430 of 2021 against 4th and 5th respondents, and an absconding charge sheet was filed against the 5th respondent before the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. After obtaining the necessary permissions, the investigating officer filed a supplementary charge sheet. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No.174 of 2021 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam, seeking to declare the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4077 and 4078 of 2021, dated 07.07.2021, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. He also obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property by filing I.A. No.278 of 2021 in O.S. No.174 of 2021 on 07.09.2021. Following a complaint by Sri E. Madhusudhan, the petitioner‟s son, the District Registrar and Inspector of the Registration Offices in Vishakhapatnam took cognizance and cancelled the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4077 and 4078 of 2021 on 02.11.2021. Challenging these cancellation orders, the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.26359 of 2023.

6. Based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 05.12.2023, the 2nd respondent, through proceedings No.RO-HYD- 27013/2/2022/RTI/Vol.1(E-7643), dated 04.01.2024, stated that information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, related to a third party, cannot be shared.

7. On 16.12.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police at Police Barracks, Suryabagh, Visakhapatnam, requesting information regarding the 5th respondent. As no action was taken, the petitioner impleaded the investigating agency as a party to the writ petition to seek substantial justice. The Application was allowed by order dated 04.11.2025.

8. In the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in Kuldeo Sah v. State of Jharkhand and Others((2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 771)), the High Court of Jharkhand held that privacy is important, it is not absolute and can be overridden by the need for substantive justice in serious criminal matters like human trafficking. This case sets a precedent for using Aadhaar card data to trace missing persons in serious crimes, balancing privacy with investigative needs.

9. In State of Gujarat v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), Government of India and others (R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No.6051 of 2023, dated 19.06.2025), the decision of the High Court of Gujarat, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused, suspected to be a Bangladeshi national, allegedly used forged Aadhaar and PAN cards to commit cheating and criminal breach of trust, the State Government required Aadhaar details from UIDAI for identification and authentication purposes to conclude the investigation. UIDAI initially resisted sharing this information, citing provisions under Sections 28 and 29 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the „Aadhaar Act‟). The Bench observed that while Sections 28 and 29 relate to the unauthorized disclosure of information, Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act provides an exception. Section 33 permits the disclosure of identity information contained in authentication records, if ordered by a High Court.

10. It is important to extract hereunder Sections 28, 29, and 33 of the Aadhaar Act, for better appreciation:

                  “28. Security and confidentiality of information—(1) The Authority shall ensure the security of identity information and authentication records of individuals.

                  (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Authority shall ensure confidentiality of identity information and authentication records of individuals.

                  (3) The Authority shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority, including information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository, is secured and protected against access, use or disclosure not permitted under this Act or regulations made thereunder, and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage.

                  (4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1) and (2), the Authority shall—

                  (a) adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures;

                  (b) ensure that the agencies, consultants, advisors or other persons appointed or engaged for performing any function of the Authority under this Act, have in place appropriate technical and organisational security measures for the information; and

                  (c) ensure that the agreements or arrangements entered into with such agencies, consultants, advisors or other persons, impose obligations equivalent to those imposed on the Authority under this Act, and require such agencies, consultants, advisors and other persons to act only on instructions from the Authority.

                  (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority or any of its officers or other employees or any agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository shall not, whether during his service or thereafter, reveal any information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository or authentication record to anyone:

                  Provided that an Aadhaar number holder may request the Authority to provide access to his identity information excluding his core biometric information in such manner as may be specified by regulations.

                  29. Restriction on sharing information—(1) No core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be—

                  (a) shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever; or

                  (b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

                  (2) The identity information, other than core biometric information, collected or created under this Act may be shared only in accordance with the provisions of this Act and in such manner as may be specified by regulations.

                  …………………….

                  33. Disclosure of information in certain cases—(1) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of Section 28 or sub- section (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]:

                  Provided that no order by the court under this sub-section shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority [and the concerned Aadhaar number holder]

                  [Provided further that the core biometric information shall not be disclosed under this sub-section.]

                  (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of Section 28 and clause (b) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub- section (3) of Section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction of an officer not below the rank of [Secretary] to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government:

                  Provided that every direction issued under this sub-section, shall be reviewed by an Oversight Committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, before it takes effect:

                  Provided further that any direction issued under this sub-section shall be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue, which may be extended for a further period of three months after the review by the Oversight Committee.”

11. In the counter filed by Respondents Nos.1 to 3, it was stated that the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent revealed that no such person resided at the specified address. In compliance with the court's orders in W.P. No.15534 of 2024, a necessary order was issued vide F.No.Ro-HYD- 26014/7/2024-RO-HYD, dated 07.10.2024, following a personal hearing held on 27.09.2024. Additionally, the Aadhaar Act, 2016, prohibits the disclosure of Aadhaar-related information without prior consent. Since the 5th respondent did not respond to the notice, dated 26.12.2023, the 3rd respondent has deactivated the Aadhaar card in accordance with Regulation 28(1)(c) of the Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2016.

12. Learned Government Pleader for Home, produced the written instructions of the SHO, Pendurthi Police Station, before this Court, stating that a charge sheet was filed on 08.04.2024 before the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and that necessary orders were subsequently issued for filing of a supplementary charge sheet.

13. Is the petitioner legally entitled to request Aadhaar card information regarding an impersonated individual from UIDAI without a formal application from the Police or investigative agency?

14. The petitioner is 79 years old and owns approximately Ac.1-99.5 cents of land in Survey Nos.156/1 and 157/11 of Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal and Visakhapatnam District. The 5th respondent, who is absconding, impersonated the petitioner‟s Aadhaar card to register the property in favor of the 4th respondent. As the primary accused i.e., the 5th respondent is reported to be absconding, as stated in the charge sheet filed before the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, upon the petitioner‟s request, the investigating agencies obtained permission and filed a supplementary charge sheet before the same court.

15. The Aadhaar Act mandates that the Court must provide an opportunity for hearing to both the UIDAI and the concerned Aadhaar card holder before passing any order. As the 5th respondent is absconding and plays an integral role in the investigation, the Court may order the disclosure of identity information, such as name, address, and photograph, as well as authentication records, including the time and location of usage. However, biometric data, such as fingerprints and iris scans, cannot be disclosed. As the case in hand involves serious property fraud and impersonation using an Aadhaar card, the investigating agencies have valid grounds to apply to the 3rd respondent for investigation purposes. As the Police cannot directly request information from the UIDAI, they must obtain an order under Section 33(i) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, to facilitate the investigation.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation was sent to the 6th respondent on 16.12.2024, requesting the necessary steps to obtain details of the 5th respondent from UIDAI. The Aadhaar Act, 2016, restricts the sharing of information to protect the privacy and confidentiality of Aadhaar card holders. The only exception to disclose identity information regarding usage of Aadhaar card is an order from a Court not inferior to a High Court or an order from a Joint Secretary in case of national security. As the petitioner is a victim of impersonation and has filed a complaint, the police have submitted an absconding charge sheet. As a law enforcement agency, the police can formally request the UIDAI for the necessary information during their investigation. However, since no application has been filed by the 6th respondent—who is the investigating officer—the court cannot direct the 3rd respondent to furnish information about the 5th respondent.

17. Further, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 provides a narrow exception to the general rule of confidentiality of Aadhaar data, allowing disclosure of identity information or authentication records only under a specific Court order. Furthermore, the citation referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to cases in which the investigation agency made an application to the UIDAI under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

18. In view of my foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.