Bombay High Court
State Of Goa, Thr. The Police Inspector, ... vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 23 September, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:1792
2025:BHC-GOA:1792 903 CRMAM 13-2025
Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.13 OF 2025
State of Goa,
Through the Police Inspector,
Anjuna Police Station,
Anjuna, Bardez, Goa. ... Applicant.
Versus
1. Unique Identification Authority of India,
Government of India,
Having its Head office at:
Bangla Sahib Road,
Behind Kali Mandir, Gole Market,
New Delhi-110001.
Having Regional Office at
UIDAI Regional Office, Mumbai,
7th Floor, MTNL Exchange,
GD Somani Marg, Cuff Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai-400 005.
2. Union of India,
Ministry of Electronics and Information,
Technology Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI)
through Deputy Solicitor of India, having
office at High Court of Bombay at Goa,
Porvorim, Goa.
3. Mr. Yaniv Benaim @ Atala,
Israeli National,
Tel Aviv, Israel,
Presently lodged at
Modern Jail, Colvale, Goa. ... Respondents.
Page ϭ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 22:01:33 :::
903 CRMAM 13-2025
Mr. S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant.
Mr. Omkar Bhave, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
RESERVED ON: 19th September, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 23rd September, 2025
ORDER:
1. This is an Application filed by the State, through the
Police Inspector, Anjuna Police Station, for an order in terms
of Section 33 (1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act 2016
("the Act"), for disclosure of the demographic information of
the Respondent No.3, submitted by him at the time of
enrolment for an Aadhaar card, documents, and other
information submitted by the Respondent No.3 herein in
proof thereof and for the details of the enrolment agency
authorized by the Respondent No.1, through which the
enrolment came to be done.
2. The case of the Applicant, as stated in the application
and the additional affidavit supporting the application dated
14.07.2025 is as under:
Page Ϯ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
a. That, an F.I.R No.12/2025 dated 05.04.2025 was
registered by the Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji under
Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 21 (b) of the NDPS Act against
the Respondent 3 for being in illegal possession of
50.00 grams of contraband suspected to be Cocaine
and 120 grams of substance suspected to be Charas,
pursuant to raid conducted by Anti Narcotic Cell,
Panaji on 04.04.2025 from 23.25 hrs to 3.30 hrs of
05.04.2025.
b. During investigation, it was found that Respondent
No.3, who is admittedly an Israeli National, was
staying in Goa/India without any valid passport or
valid visa issued by the Indian authorities, but had
been issued an Aadhaar card bearing no. 8368 4349
1046 on 11.08.2021; this Aadhaar card was handed
over to the investigating authorities by one of the
witnesses.
c. A second complaint dated 06.04.2025 was filed by
PSI Deendayal of Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station
with Anjuna Police Station against Respondent
Page ϯ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
No.3, wherein F.I.R. No.61/2025 was registered
under section 7(1), 7(3)(iii) of the Foreigners Order
Act, 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
This F.I.R. discloses that the Respondent No.3 was a
permanent resident of Tel Aviv, Israel and was found
staying in Goa/India without possessing valid travel
documents (passport and visa).
d. That since an Aadhaar card could be issued only to a
person who was a resident in India, the same could
not have been obtained by the Respondent No.3,
who was a foreign national, without having a valid
passport and valid residence visa for the requisite
period, to show him to be eligible to obtain an
Aadhaar card, as on 08.04.2025; accordingly, an
email was sent to the Assistant Director General,
UIDIA, requesting for disclosure of documents as
proof of residence, submitted by the Respondent
No.3 to obtain the Aadhaar card, which request was
rejected on 11.04.2025 by the Deputy director of
UIDAI, RO, Mumbai; the rejection was on grounds
Page ϰ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
of restrictions imposed by provisions of section 33 of
the Act.
3. This Court, after notice was issued to the Respondents,
including Respondent No.3, vide its order dated 09.06.2025,
directed the UIDAI and Respondent No.2 to produce the
documents on the basis of which the Aadhaar card was issued,
under sealed cover, which were placed on record on
19.06.2025; the Respondent no.3 filed his affidavit in reply
dated 09.07.2025 vehemently opposing the said Petition, on
grounds that if the information sought was released to the
Applicant, the fundamental rights of right to privacy, of the
Respondent No.3 under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
would be violated. In the reply, Respondent No.3 contended
that disclosure of information related to biometric and
demographic data of the Respondent is an essential
component of his personal liberty and such disclosure should
pass the three-fold test laid down by the Supreme Court in the
K.S. Puttaswamy (RTD) and others V/s Union of
India and Ors, (2019) 1 SCC 1. In the reply, Respondent
No.3 states that he is an Israeli National and claimed that
Page ϱ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
there was no illegality committed by him in applying for or in
the issuance of the Aadhaar card in his favour.
4. Thereafter, the Additional Affidavit dated 14.07.2025
was filed by the Applicant, placing on record the following
facts:
a. The affidavit contains criminal antecedents of the
Respondent No.3, including the jail sentences
undergone by the Respondent No.3 on being
convicted for various offences within India;
b. The affidavit also places on record that during the
pendency of this application, the Respondent No.3
had applied for a fresh passport with the Israeli
authorities and was issued an Israeli passport on
20.05.2025 bearing No. 24419662 valid from
20.05.2025 to 19.05.2026.
c. Further that Respondent No.3 had been granted bail
in Crime No.61/2025 by the J.M.F.C., Mapusa vide
order dated 23.04.2025 in the matter relating to
offences under the Foreigners Order Act and
Page ϲ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
Foreigners Act, but continued in custody for the
crime No.12/2025 filed by the ANC.
d. He further submitted that the Respondent No.3 has
the several crimes registered against him and has
also been convicted of offences and undergone
sentence imposed upon him. Details of these cases
are given below:
i. The Respondent No.3 had been arrested on
21.12.2005 by the ANC in Crime No.18/2005
under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act
and was convicted by JMFC 'C' Court Mapusa
and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 5
days.
ii. Respondent No.3 was arrested on 16.12.2006
in Anjuna Police Station, Crime No.82/2006
under section 3(2)(a) of Passport Entry into
India 1920, section 7(1)(3) of Foreigners Order
Act 1948 and Section 14 of Foreigners Act and
was subsequently convicted by JMFC, 'C'
Page ϳ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
Court Mapusa and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 2 days and to pay fine
of Rs.5000- and in default to undergo 2 days
simple imprisonment.
iii. In 2007, Respondent No.3 was accused by the
Crime Branch in Crime No.103/2007 under
section 7(1)(3) of Foreigners Order Act, 1948
and section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1948, and
was convicted on 18.06.2020 by JMFC 'E'
Court Mapusa and sentenced to 3 months of
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for 2 days, (which sentence was
already served since he was in custody from
11.07.2019 to 18.06.2020).
iv. In the year 2010, the Respondent no.3 was
involved in Crime Branch Crime No.16/2010
under section 120-B of IPC and section 7,11,12
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This case
along with two more FIR's were handed over
to the CBI for investigation; during
Page ϴ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
investigation, Respondent No.3 escaped arrest
in India and was apprehended in Peru through
Interpol after a Red Corner Notice was issued
by CBI and he was extradited to Goa/ India by
CBI, subsequent to which he was released on
bail by Special Judge Panaji on 22.03.2012,
however Respondent No.3 was not charge-
sheeted in the said case.
v. On 25.04.2019, FIR No. 54/2019 was
registered at the Anjuna Police Station, against
Respondent No.3 under section 326 and 307,
which is pending trial in the Sessions court,
Panaji; during the trial Respondent No.3 tried
to flee to Nepal, via Uttarakhand, however he
was arrested at Bambasa Police Station,
Champawat, Uttarakhand in Crime
No.19/2019 under section 14 of Foreigners
Act, 1946 for not having valid documents for
stay in India.
He was thereafter charge-sheeted in the
Champawat case on 04.07.2019 and was
Page ϵ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
brought to Goa as he was required in the
aforementioned Anjuna Police Station Crime
No.54/2019 and another Case of 2007.
Respondent No.3 was granted bail on
20.07.2020 in crime no.54/2019; he was
released on bail in the Champawat case on
08.12.2020 and was convicted on 30.03.2024
and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of
1 year 7 months, inclusive of the default
sentence which Respondent no.3 had already
served since he was in custody for other
offences.
SUBMISSIONS
5. The Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Shailendra Bhobe,
representing the State, tendered the following submissions:
A. That an Aadhaar card can be issued to a foreign
national if the said individual produces a valid
Passport and Visa along with proof of
address/residence at the time of enrolment. He
Page ϭϬ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
submits that an Aadhaar card could be issued only to
a resident of India, according to Section 3 of the Act,
and in the present case the Respondent No.3 neither
had a valid passport or nor a visa issued by the
Indian authorities under which he could reside in
India.
B. He further submitted that the Respondent No.3 was
not residing at the address mentioned in the
Aadhaar card, at the time of arrest. He therefore
submitted that it became very relevant for the
purpose of investigating Crime No.12/2025 under
the NDPS Act and even more importantly Crime
No.61/2025 under the Foreigners Act and
Foreigners Order Act to obtain the
documents/information submitted by the
Respondent No.3 at the time of enrolment for
Aadhaar number, and more particularly, the
documents/demographic information given by the
Respondent No.3 to the Authority for obtaining his
Aadhaar. It was further submitted that the
investigation sought to determine how an Aadhaar
Page ϭϭ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
was issued to a foreign National with no residence
status in India, as this would have wider
ramifications for the security of the State and for
maintenance of law and order as the Aadhaar card of
Respondent No.3 was in use as a document of
residence.
C. It was then submitted that the Respondent No.3 has
a history of involvement in many crimes, and
therefore it is necessary to investigate as to which
documents were produced by Respondent No.3 to
obtain the Aadhaar card, as there is every possibility
that the Aadhaar card of the Respondent No.3 would
be misused before various authorities.
D. In furtherance of his submissions, the Learned
Public Prosecutor has relied on the following
judgements:
i. State Govt. of NCT Of Delhi v/s Unique
Identification Authority Of India And
Anr., Order dated 03.05.2024 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Page ϭϮ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.987 of 2023.
ii. Sher Khan @Sheru v/s State of
Haryana and Ors., order dated
28.02.2023 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application no.1526 of
2022 in Writ Petition No.1524 of 2016.
iii. Dr. Mamta Kabra and Others v/s The
Union of India and Others, judgement
dated 18.12.2024 of the High Court of
Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ
Petition No.1077 of 2021.
iv. Union Territory of Chandigarh V/s
Unique Identification Authority of
India and others, order dated
24.03.2023 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No.35794 of
2021.
6. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mr. Vibhav
Amonkar, opposes the grant of the application mainly on
grounds that disclosing the biometric and other information
and documents on the basis of which the Aadhaar was
granted, would amount to a breach of his privacy, and
Page ϭϯ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
consequently, his fundamental right under Article 21
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He places reliance on
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttuswamy
(supra).
Shri Raviraj Chodankar appearing for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 Authority, after placing the documents which
were submitted by the Respondent No.3 before this Court
under sealed cover, has submitted that the Authority would
abide by the orders of this Court, which may consider, after
perusing the documents, whether the application should be
granted.
7. The sole point for determination that arises in this
application is whether the Applicant has made out a case for
disclosure of information under Section 33 of the Act.
8. Section 28 of the Act requires the Authority to ensure
the security of the identity information and the authentication
records of an individual who has been issued an Aadhaar card.
Similarly, Section 29 restricts the sharing of core biometric
information collected or created under the Act, though Sub-
Section 2 of Section 29 allows for identity information, other
Page ϭϰ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
than core biometric information collected by the Authority to
be shared, only in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Under clause (n) of Section 2, "identity information",
includes an individual's Aadhaar number, his biometric
information and his demographic information. Under clause
(g) of Section 2, "biometric information" means the
individual's photograph, fingerprint, iris scan or such other
biological attributes.
Clause (d) of Section 2 defines an "authentication
record" to mean the record of the time of authentication and
identity of the requesting entity.
9. Section 33 of the Act empowers the High Court, to, on
an application filed, to allow disclosure of information,
including identity information or authentication records of an
individual, after giving opportunity of hearing to the Authority
and the Aadhaar number holder. 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. This would be
Page ϭϱ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
even more relevant, in the light of the fact that the Respondent
No.3, who holds the Aadhaar card is admittedly an Israeli
National, and was detained for not having any valid travel
documents in his possession. The Respondent No.3 obviously
did not have a valid passport or valid visa at the relevant time,
but has obtained a passport issued by the Israeli State only on
20.05.2025 after this application was filed.
10. Since the Respondent No.3 did not possess a valid
passport, visa or any travel documents and was involved in
Crime No.12/2025, on 06.04.2025 a second FIR bearing
Crime No.61/2025 under Sections 7(i), 7(3)(iii) of the
Foreigners Order 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act,
1946. Investigation into Crime No.12/2025 being by ANC for
offences of possession of contraband suspected to be cocaine
for which the Respondent No.3 was arrested on 05.04.2025
revealed that the Respondent No.3 was in possession of
Aadhaar Card bearing No. 8368 4349 1046, issued by the
Authority on 11.08.2021. Earlier, on 25.04.2019, FIR No.
54/2019 was registered at the Anjuna Police Station, against
Respondent No.3 under section 326 and 307, which is
pending trial in the Sessions court, Panaji; during the trial
Page ϭϲ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
Respondent No.3 tried to flee to Nepal, via Uttarakhand,
however he was arrested at Bambasa Police Station,
Champawat, Uttarakhand in Crime No.19/2019 under section
14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 for not having valid documents for
stay in India. During trial of the Champawat case the
Respondent No.3 was brought to Goa as he was required to
face trial in the Anjuna Police Station Crime No.54/2019 for
attempted murder and another Case of 2007. Respondent
No.3 was granted bail on 20.07.2020 in crime no.54/2019; he
was released on bail in the Champawat case on 08.12.2020
and was convicted on 30.03.2024 and sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of 1 year 7 months, inclusive of the
default sentence which Respondent no.3 had already served
since he was in custody for other offences.
11. It is during the trial of these offences, that the
Respondent No.3 has obtained an Aadhaar card on
11.08.2021, despite, admittedly not possessing a valid
passport, valid visa or any travel document. He was deported
from Peru by the CBI on 25.08.2011 and has been in India
since then. According to the Applicant, the last known
passports of Respondent No.3 were Passport No.14355605
Page ϭϳ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
issued on 22.10.2010 valid upto 21.08.2020 and the other
being Passport No.10150776 issued on 08.02.2004 valid upto
07.02.2014. The passport obtained recently by the
Respondent No.3 is dated 20.05.2025 bearing No.24419662
valid from 20.05.2025 to 19.05.2026.
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. It is in the background of the various crimes of
which the Respondent No.3 has been convicted, or is under
trial, and is now being investigated, more so the investigation
into the circumstances under which the Respondent No.3
obtained an Aadhaar card, being undertaken in Crime
No.61/2025 (for offences under Foreigners Order/Foreigners
Act) that the details sought are of relevance.
12. Section 3 of the Act provides that every Resident, shall
be entitled to an Aadhaar number by submitting his
demographic information. The provision therefore entitles a
person who is a resident of India, irrespective of Nationality,
to obtain an Aadhaar. The word "resident" must be read in
context of valid residence, in the event that the Respondent
Page ϭϴ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
No.3 is a foreigner, where he would be required to have a visa
or travel document issued by the Government of India, to
enable him to reside in India for such time as would be
permitted by the visa conditions. Obviously, such visa or travel
document would require the Respondent No.3 to have a
residential permit, and not just a visiting visa, to qualify him
for obtaining an Aadhaar number.
13. 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. In the absence of a
document that allowed him residence in India, and more so
when he was deported from Peru on 25.08.2011, and his last
known passport had expired on 21.08.2020, the grant of the
application to enable the investigating Authorities to
investigate the circumstances under which, the Respondent
No.3 had obtained an Aadhaar number, would attain great
relevance.
14. The application for an Aadhaar number is required to be
made in terms of Form 1 under the Aadhaar Regulations. In
terms of these Regulations, the Respondent No.1 has
Page ϭϵ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
published a "List of acceptable supporting documents for
verification", under which one of the documents which can be
produced as POI (Proof of Identity), which contain the name
and photo of the Respondent No.3, is a Certificate of Identity
having photo issued by a Gazetted Officer in the standard
format of the UIDAI. The date of birth (DOB) documents
accepted under these regulations may be ascertained through
various documents stated in the regulations, one of which is a
certificate of birth issued by a Gazetted Officer in standard
UIDAI format. The proof of address (POA) documents
accepted under the regulations are 45 in number of which one
is a certificate of address having photo issued by a Member of
Parliament or an MLA or an MLC or a Gazetted Officer on
UIDAI standard format.
Form 1 appended to the Regulations is required to be
filled in by an Applicant who is resident Indian or a non
resident Indian having proof of address in India.
15. Obviously, as stated in the application, the information
sought by the Applicant by this application is to enable the
Investigating Officer to establish the manner in which, and by
Page ϮϬ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
what validating documents, in the absence of the Respondent
No.3 holding a valid passport or visa on the relevant day, the
Aadhaar Card was issued to establish the said Respondent's
residence status. This was even more relevant, considering
that the Respondent No.3 was on bail in various offences or
had been convicted, and was in India after having been
extradited from Peru through Interpol on a red corner notice
being issued by the CBI. The Respondent No.3, having no
valid residence visa or even a valid passport, as on the date he
applied for the Aadhaar card, prima facie, may not have been
entitled to apply for an Aadhaar card; the Investigating Officer
cites this very reason, for which a request has been made in
this application to provide the demographic information of
the Respondent No.3, to investigate whether he was at all
entitled to have obtained the Aadhaar number which would be
used as proof of residence. On this count, the application must
be allowed, as the content of the demographic information
would have a direct bearing on the investigation and especially
in the Crime No.61/2025 under the Foreigners Order Act and
Foreigners Act.
Page Ϯϭ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
16. Though, on the face of the application, a case has been
made out to grant the same for reasons cited above,
considering the argument raised by the Respondent No.3,
claiming that his fundamental right to privacy would be
breached by disclosure of the demographic information, I
have perused the Form 1 produced by the Authority under
cover of letter dated 13.06.2025. The proof of identity (POI),
proof of address (POA) and proof of birth (POB) are all
provided under certificate issued by a Gazetted Officer of the
Government of Goa, in the standard format of the UIDAI, the
Gazetted Officer having countersigned the form certifying the
place of residence filled in by the Respondent No.3 at Anjuna,
Goa. 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. 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.
Page ϮϮ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
903 CRMAM 13-2025
17. For all the aforementioned reasons, I pass the following
order:
The Application under Section 33(1) of the Act, is
allowed. 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; 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.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page Ϯϯ of Ϯϯ
23rd September, 2025
