The Bombay High Court has held that where an Aadhaar holder faces biometric mismatch, deactivation, omission, cancellation or related technical irregularity, UIDAI cannot keep the person in indefinite administrative uncertainty; it must clearly indicate and facilitate the legally permissible remedial route under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, whether by rectification, biometric updating, reactivation or fresh enrolment, and process the case in a fair, transparent and time-bound manner, without insisting on documents or conditions beyond those prescribed by law, particularly where there is no allegation of fraud, impersonation or duplication.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the UIDAI Regional Office at Mumbai or such Aadhaar Seva Kendra as specified, and submit fresh applications for Aadhaar enrolment with fresh biometric capture and prescribed supporting documents, within fifteen days. UIDAI was also directed to accept such applications, issue proper acknowledgment, and not reject them merely because the earlier Aadhaar numbers were suspended, deactivated, omitted or cancelled due to biometric mismatch.
The Court also directed the UIDAI to process the applications strictly in accordance with the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the 2016 Regulations, and to take a final decision within four weeks from submission. If complete and free from independent legal impediment, fresh Aadhaar numbers/cards were to be issued; otherwise, a reasoned written order was to be communicated within the same period.
The Court also issued general directions for future guidance, including written communication of the precise status of Aadhaar records, maintenance of facilitation mechanisms, reasonable opportunity for fresh biometric capture where original enrolment occurred during minority, avoidance of repeated visits without guidance, facilitation of fresh enrolment where permissible, expeditious processing preferably within four weeks, and non-insistence on documents beyond statutory requirements.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar observed that the controversy was narrow: the petitioners were not seeking to bypass biometric safeguards, and UIDAI did not dispute that they could submit fresh enrolment applications with current biometrics and supporting documents. The real grievance was that they had been moved from one administrative process to another without final resolution.
The Bench noted that the Aadhaar Act, 2016 vests UIDAI with responsibility for enrolment, authentication, data management and issuance of Aadhaar numbers, and contemplates alteration of demographic and biometric information as well as omission/deactivation processes. Referring to Regulations 28 and 31 of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, the Bench observed that the statutory scheme recognizes deactivation where data is flagged as bad data, including mixed or anomalous biometrics, and also contemplates re-enrolment where Aadhaar is omitted for reasons other than multiple Aadhaar numbers.
The Bench expressly held that the statutory scheme does not support “an indefinite administrative limbo.” If the case is one of deactivation, the authority must indicate the rectification pathway; if it is one of omission/cancellation requiring re-enrolment, the authority must accept and process fresh enrolment in accordance with law. It observed that an eligible resident cannot be left remediless merely because an earlier biometric record is defective, particularly where there is no allegation of fraud or impersonation. Page 9 Page 19 Page 20
On facts, the Bench found UIDAI’s communication inconsistent and unsatisfactory, observing that it was not expected of a statutory authority dealing with foundational identity credentials to leave young students without a clear, written, time-bound remedy. At the same time, it clarified that it could not direct UIDAI to restore or update an Aadhaar number if the statutory system had detected mixed or anomalous biometrics and if the applicable regulations required omission or fresh enrolment. The integrity of the Aadhaar database was held to be a matter of public importance.
The Bench additionally recorded broader concern that citizens are increasingly approaching constitutional courts due to biometric mismatch, failed updation, deactivation, omission, cancellation and other technical irregularities in Aadhaar records, causing hardship and avoidable litigation. It stressed that while preserving the sanctity and integrity of the Aadhaar database, the authorities are expected to adopt a humane, responsive, facilitative and citizen-centric approach in genuine cases involving biometric mismatch or technical irregularities, especially where no fraud or impersonation is alleged.
Briefly, petitioners, Rohit Bandu Nikalje and Rahul Bandu Nikalje, are twin brothers aged 19 years who approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to UIDAI either to update the biometric details linked to their Aadhaar cards or, alternatively, to issue fresh Aadhaar cards without delay. Their case was that Aadhaar cards had been issued to them in 2012 when they were minors, and when they later sought mandatory biometric updating in 2022, the updating was not accepted despite submission of documents and biometric data.
Upon inquiry, they were informed that the update request had been rejected due to biometric mismatch. They raised grievances on the UIDAI portal, visited the Regional Office on 23 April 2024, and were advised to apply for cancellation of the existing Aadhaar numbers and thereafter seek fresh enrolment. After they acted on that advice, they were later informed on 30 May 2024 that, because of a new circular, the earlier cancellation process had been revoked and that they would now be required to update the existing Aadhaar numbers with corrected biometrics.
The petitioners then consented to correction and updating of the existing records, but despite further visits on 9 June 2024 and 2 September 2024, they were only told that the matter was under process. They contended that this caused serious prejudice, particularly because Aadhaar was being insisted upon for admissions, insurance, identity verification and allied purposes. The petitioners argued that they had committed no fraud, impersonation or suppression; that any interchange or incorrect capture of biometrics when they were minors could not be attributed to them; and that the shifting stands of UIDAI had left them without an effective identity credential despite no fault on their part.
UIDAI submitted that the earlier Aadhaar records disclosed biometric mismatch and that, upon technical verification, the existing Aadhaar numbers were suspended/cancelled in accordance with the applicable procedure. UIDAI further submitted that the petitioners were at liberty to apply afresh for Aadhaar enrolment with valid supporting documents and fresh biometric capture, to be processed in accordance with the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
Appearances:
Harshada Shirsath a/w Ramaprasad Deore i/b. Swaraj Sabale, for Petitioners
P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State
Shehnaz V. Bharucha and Gargi Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
