In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court ruled that investigating agencies may obtain Aadhaar details of missing trafficking victims, provided they secure a High Court order. The court emphasized that while privacy is a fundamental right, the necessity of tracing victims of trafficking outweighs concerns under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
Brief Facts:
The appellants, Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah and Pappu Sah @ Pappu Kumar Sah, were taken into custody under Sections 370/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a human trafficking case. Their bail applications were rejected due to the continued inability of investigating agencies to locate the trafficked minor victims. During the course of the investigation, the authorities sought access to the victims’ Aadhaar details from the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to aid in tracing their whereabouts. UIDAI, citing Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, refused to release the information without a court order. The state, therefore, approached the High Court for direction.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing appellants contended that they were falsely implicated in the case and had no involvement in the trafficking activities. It was further argued that since no recovery of the victims had been made and no direct evidence linked them to the crime, continued detention was unjustified. The appellants also argued that investigating agencies had not exhausted all other methods of tracing the victims and that reliance on Aadhaar information alone was an insufficient basis for prolonging their judicial custody.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State emphasized that all possible steps had been taken to trace the victims, including the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and extensive field investigations. Despite these efforts, no clues had emerged regarding the victims’ whereabouts. The state submitted that Aadhaar data was crucial in locating the victims and that UIDAI’s refusal to share details without a court order was delaying the investigation. It was further argued that the Aadhaar Act allowed disclosure under Section 33(1) upon judicial authorization, and the court’s intervention was necessary to facilitate the release of the required information.
Observations of the Court:
The court recognized the delicate balance between privacy rights and the urgent need to trace trafficked minors. While privacy laws generally restrict disclosure of Aadhaar details, the court underscored that the principle of Salus Populi Suprema Lex—the welfare of the people being the supreme law—must prevail in cases concerning human trafficking.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019), the bench noted that Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act allows disclosure of Aadhaar information under a High Court order. It stressed that a law meant for governance should serve the purpose of substantive justice and not create procedural roadblocks in critical cases.
The court also highlighted that trafficking is a scheduled offense under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and that traffickers often exploit legal loopholes to evade law enforcement. It pointed out that failure to trace victims not only impacts justice for the trafficked individuals but also enables criminal networks to continue their illicit activities. The bench further observed that UIDAI’s reliance on strict adherence to Section 33(1) was misplaced in this context, as the provision itself allows judicial intervention.
The court stated that law is for doing substantive justice and when dealing with the issue of the victim who has not been traced out having been traceless since sometime in the year 2014 and, as such, for the purpose of doing substantive justice towards the parents, more particularly, the victim who is traceless for more than a decade, the power which is to be exercised by the High Court as provided under Section 33(1) of the Act, 2016 is required to be exercised.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed UIDAI to provide the investigating agencies with the Aadhaar details of the missing victims under a sealed cover within a stipulated timeframe. It emphasized that the disclosure should be limited to aiding the investigation and should not be misused beyond its intended purpose. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with instructions for the investigating agencies to submit an updated status report on the recovery efforts within four weeks.
Case Title: Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah & Pappu Sah @ Pappu Kumar Sah vs The State of Jharkhand & Another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 736 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Raj, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.; Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.; Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
Picture Source :
