Kerala High Court: While considering a writ petition filed by the State seeking assistance from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in investigating an unresolved double-murder case, a Single Judge Bench of G. Girish, J., held that the statutory restrictions under Sections 28 and 29, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act), would not bar disclosure ordered under Section 33 and that the investigating agency’s request did not involve transmission of core biometric information. The Court consequently permitted Aadhaar database access in criminal investigation and directed UIDAI to conduct fingerprint comparison and furnish information regarding persons whose fingerprints were found matching with those recovered during investigation.
Also Read: Bom HC orders UIDAI to disclose Aadhaar details of Israeli national
Background
The matter arose from the brutal murder of a middle-aged couple at their residence in Kannukurissi, Palakkad, on the night of 14 November 2016. The crime was allegedly committed for the robbery of 3 sovereigns of gold and cash amounting to ₹4000. During investigation, the local police and the Crime Branch succeeded in apprehending 1 offender after a fingerprint recovered from the scene matched his fingerprint. However, the investigating agency was unable to trace the other culprits involved in the commission of the offence.
The investigation team compared 6 sample fingerprints collected from the scene with the fingerprints of more than 1200 persons, but they were unable to trace out the other offenders. Faced with that situation, the investigating agency sought assistance from UIDAI to compare the unidentified fingerprints with the Aadhaar database. The request was rejected, prompting the filing of the writ petition seeking a direction to UIDAI to undertake the comparison and disclose the information obtained therefrom.
UIDAI opposed the writ petition principally on 2 grounds. First, it was contended that the law did not permit sharing of biometric and other information stored in its database. Secondly, it was submitted that technical constraints prevented successful comparison of static fingerprints collected from paper or other material with Aadhaar records. UIDAI further argued that allowing such requests would open the floodgates for investigating agencies to seek comparison of suspect fingerprints against the confidential biometric records of more than 130 crore Aadhaar holders.
Analysis
The Court examined Sections 28, 29 and 33, Aadhaar Act, and noted that while Sections 28 and 29 imposed obligations relating to confidentiality and restrictions on disclosure of information, Section 33 carved out exceptions permitting disclosure pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court. The Court observed that the statutory embargo under Sections 28 and 29 would not apply when disclosure was sought pursuant to such a judicial order.
Regarding the requirement in the first proviso to Section 33 that hearing be given to UIDAI and the Aadhaar number holder concerned, the Court noted that UIDAI had already been heard through its counsel. The Court further observed that the requirement of hearing individual Aadhaar holders was not applicable in the peculiar facts of the case since there would have been no need for the investigating agency to seek the help of UIDAI, if they were aware of the whereabouts of the persons whose identity information were sought to be collected.
The Court then considered the bar on disclosure of core biometric information contained in the second proviso to Section 33. The Court emphasised that the investigating agency was not seeking transmission of fingerprints, iris scans, or any other biometric information from the Aadhaar database. Rather, the request was limited to UIDAI internally comparing the fingerprints supplied by investigators with those available in its records and communicating the whereabouts of persons whose fingerprints matched. The Court highlighted that the subsequent collection of fingerprints from such persons and further investigative steps would be undertaken independently in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court held that the embargo on disclosure of core biometric information was not attracted.
UIDAI relied upon K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1, contending that the right to privacy of citizens would stand infringed if Aadhaar records were utilised in the manner sought by the petitioner, to which the State pointed out that it needed the comparison only for the persons of Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu as it was believed that the other offenders were remaining in exile there. The Court rejected UIDAI’s contention, relying on the conclusions recorded in K.S. Puttaswamy, particularly the finding that upheld the constitutionality of Section 33, Aadhaar Act. The Court observed that the collection of information for the purpose of a criminal investigation falls outside the privacy-related limitations discussed in that judgment. Accordingly, the Court held that the privacy objection founded on K.S. Puttaswamy was “totally unfounded”.
The Court, while declining the issue of technical difficulty, noted the submission that Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) had already confirmed that fingerprints available in JPEG format could successfully be converted into the required binary format using available software and the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) system. The Court observed that this was a fit case to permit the comparison of the suspect’s fingerprints with the fingerprints stored in the database for Coimbatore District.
Also Read: Jharkhand HC seeks SOP on Aadhaar disclosure for missing children
Decision
Consequently, while allowing the writ petition, the Court directed UIDAI to compare the suspect fingerprints supplied in binary format by the investigating agency with the fingerprints available in its database pertaining to Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, and to furnish information regarding persons whose fingerprints matched the suspect’s fingerprints. The Court expressly clarified that the direction was being issued in the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case and should not be cited as a precedent for adopting a similar course in future matters.
[State of Kerala v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 639 of 2024, decided on 14-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Public Prosecutor; Director General of Prosecution; P. Narayanan, Spl. G.P. to DGP and Addl. P.P.; Sajju S., Senior G.P.; M. Muhammed Shafi, Addl. State Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents: Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel; O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
