The Karnataka High Court held that identity information linked to Aadhaar, including authentication records and usage details, can be disclosed to investigating authorities pursuant to a judicial order under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. The Court, while allowing a writ petition filed by a father searching for his missing son, observed that withholding such crucial information would defeat the purpose of a criminal investigation and impede access to justice.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide authentication history and transaction details of his missing son's Aadhaar card. His son, who had been working as an apprentice in a technology company, went missing in 2019, and despite the registration of a missing persons FIR, his whereabouts remained unknown. In June 2023, the petitioner discovered that his son’s Aadhaar card had been used for authentication. However, UIDAI refused to share the authentication history with the investigating agency, citing confidentiality obligations. Left with no alternative, the petitioner moved the High Court, seeking judicial intervention to compel UIDAI to disclose the usage details necessary for tracing his son.
Petitioner’s counsel argued that the Aadhaar authentication data holds vital clues that could reveal the location where the missing person’s card was used, potentially aiding the investigation. He submitted that Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act permits disclosure of non-biometric identity information when required by law, and Section 33 empowers the High Court to order disclosure in the interests of justice.
Whereas, UIDAI’s counsel contended that Aadhaar information is protected under the right to privacy as recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and that the authority cannot disclose authentication data, even to law enforcement, without explicit legal sanction. and the counsel for the State supported the petitioner, stating that without access to the Aadhaar usage data, the police were unable to make progress in the investigation.
The High Court conducted an extensive analysis of Sections 29 and 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. It noted that while Section 29 imposes a strict bar on sharing core biometric data such as fingerprints or iris scans, non-biometric identity information, including Aadhaar numbers, demographic information, and authentication records — can be disclosed under specific legal conditions. Quoting Section 33, the Court emphasized, “Nothing contained in 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 Bench clarified that Section 33 empowers the High Court to order the disclosure of Aadhaar information if necessary for justice, provided UIDAI is given an opportunity to be heard. It further observed that such disclosure was crucial in the present case to determine whether the missing individual himself used the Aadhaar card or if someone else had misused it, and to identify the location of the usage. The Court remarked that investigative efforts would remain incomplete without this data, “When the police have no access to the Aadhaar usage details, there is no possibility of the investigation being carried forward. The Court is empowered to direct UIDAI to provide identity information, including the Aadhaar number, demographic details, and the location of its last usage.”
Futher, the Court also clarified that UIDAI’s refusal to share data was not illegal since such disclosure must be judicially authorised. It held that investigating agencies must approach the High Court under Section 33 when seeking Aadhaar data for investigative purposes.
Concluding that the information sought was essential for the ongoing investigation, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed UIDAI to furnish the location details of all Aadhaar authentications linked to the missing person from the date of the complaint till the present, within 15 days of receiving the order.
However, the Court restricted the scope of disclosure, making it clear that only location details should be provided and that the investigating agency must not share the information with any third party beyond what is necessary for the investigation.
Case Title: Krishnamurthy vs. The Director Uidai & Anr
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 105596 of 2025 (Gm-Res)
Coram: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Dinesh M. Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. M.B. Kanavi, Sharad V. Magadum
Picture Source :
