Bombay High Court: In the present application, the State sought disclosure of the demographic information under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act (‘the Act’), 2016 (‘Aadhar Act’) of the respondent, an Israeli national, who was found residing in Goa without valid travel documents and alleged to have obtained an Aadhaar card despite being ineligible. A Single Judge Bench of Valmiki Menezes, J., while allowing the application, held that the respondent admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued, or his demographic information was collected.
The Court stated that the word “resident” must be read in the context of valid residence, and that a foreigner would be required to have a visa or travel document issued by the Government of India, permitting residence under visa conditions.
Background:
An FIR dated 05-04-2025 was registered by the Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) against the respondent for illegal possession of 50 grams of suspected cocaine and 120 grams of suspected charas, pursuant to a raid conducted on 04-04-2025 from 23:25 hrs to 03:30 hrs on 05-04-2025.
During investigation, it was found that the respondent was staying in Goa/India without a valid passport or visa, but had been issued an Aadhaar card on 11-08-2021, which was handed over to the Investigating Authorities by a witness.
A second complaint dated 06-04-2025 was filed by PSI of Anti Narcotic Cell with Anjuna Police Station, resulting in an FIR under Section 7(1), 7(3)(iii) of the Foreigners Order Act, 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘Foreigners Act’). It disclosed that the respondent was a permanent resident of Tel Aviv, Israel and was found staying in India without valid travel documents.
Since Aadhaar card could only be issued to a resident of India, the respondent, being an Israeli national without a valid passport or residence visa, was not eligible. An email was sent to UIDAI requesting disclosure of documents submitted by the respondent, which was rejected on 11-04-2025 due to restrictions under Section 33 of the Act.
The Court, by order dated 09-06-2025, directed Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIDAI’) and the State to produce the documents under sealed cover, which were placed on record on 19-06-2025. The respondent filed an affidavit dated 09-07-2025 opposing the petition, citing violation of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On the contrary, the applicant submitted that the respondent had criminal antecedents and had served jail sentences for various offences. During the pendency of the application, the respondent was issued a fresh Israeli passport on 20-05-2025. The applicant further submitted that multiple criminal cases had been registered against the respondent, and he had been convicted and sentenced in several of them. He was arrested and convicted in multiple cases under the NDPS Act, the Foreigners Act, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, and was extradited from Peru by the CBI following a Red Corner Notice. He was subsequently released on bail in 2012
It was alleged that in 2019, he was booked under Sections 326 and 307 of the Penal Code, 1860, attempted to flee to Nepal, arrested in Uttarakhand, and later convicted in 2024 under the Foreigners Act. It was further contended that he had served sentences during custody for various offences, which were placed on record to support the application.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined Section 33 of the Act and observed that it empowered the High Court 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. The Court noted that the provision empowered the Court to disclose, if a case had been made out by the applicant, all information including identity information and authentication records of the respondent, including documents forming the basis on which the Aadhaar card was granted.
The Court observed that during the trial of these offences, the respondent had obtained an Aadhaar card on 11-08-2021, despite admittedly not possessing a valid passport, valid visa or any travel document. The Court highlighted that the Israeli national was not in possession of a valid passport or visa to justify his stay in India as a resident, to qualify him for being granted an Aadhaar card.
The Court emphasised that Section 3 of the Act provided that every Resident shall be entitled to an Aadhaar number by submitting demographic information. The Court stated that the word “resident” must be read in context of valid residence, and that a foreigner would be required to have a visa or travel document issued by the Government of India, permitting residence under visa conditions, and such visa or travel document would require a residential permit, and not just a visiting visa, to qualify for obtaining an Aadhaar number.
The Court observed that the respondent admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued, or his demographic information was collected. The Court noted that in the absence of a document allowing 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 Investigating Authorities to investigate the circumstances under which the respondent had obtained an Aadhaar number attained great relevance.
The Court highlighted that the information sought by the applicant was to enable the Investigating Officer to establish the manner in which, and by what validating documents, in the absence of the respondent holding a valid passport or visa on the relevant day, the Aadhaar Card was issued to establish the respondent’s residence status. The Court noted that the respondent 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 issued by the CBI.
The Court, while considering the argument raised by the respondent that disclosure of demographic information would breach his fundamental right to privacy, perused Form 1 produced by the Authority under cover of letter dated 13-06-2025. The Court observed that the proof of identity (‘POI’), proof of address (‘POA’) and proof of birth (‘POB’) had all been certified by the same Gazetted Officer and were not based upon any other document belonging to the respondent to substantiate these parameters. The Court held that disclosure of the information 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, which he seeks protection of.
The Court, thus, allowed the application under Section 33(1) of the Act and directed the UIDAI to provide to the Applicant the demographic information of the respondent, placed under sealed cover on 19-06-2025, submitted as proof of demographic information.
Further, the Court directed the UIDAI to provide details of the Enrolment Agency authorised by it, through which the enrolment of the respondent to Aadhaar card was done, within two weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the sealed envelope was to be returned to the UIDAI by the Registry of the Court.
[State of Goa v. Unique Identification Authority of India, Criminal Application (Main) No.13 of 2025, decided on 23-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: S.G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Omkar Bhave, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
