Madras High Court: In the present petition, a 74-year-old senior citizen and widow of an ex-serviceman (petitioner), had sought a direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (‘UIDAI’) to correct her name and date of birth in the Aadhaar Card, as discrepancies in these details had prevented the transfer of her late husband’s army pension. A Single Judge Bench of G. R. Swaminathan, J., while allowing the petition, held that alteration of information in the Aadhaar Card is a statutory function discharged by the UIDAI and thus is a form of service. Therefore, the Court pointed out that every Aadhaar number holder has the fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime.
Background:
The petitioner was widowed recently. Her husband had served the Indian Army for 21 years and was in receipt of army pension. Following his demise, she applied for transfer of the pension account. However, her request could not be processed due to discrepancies in her Aadhaar Card as her name had been wrongly spelt, and her date of birth was erroneously entered as “25-06-1952” instead of “07-06-1952”.
To rectify these errors, the petitioner first approached the E-Sevai Maiyam at Paramakudi. She was directed to approach the local post office for effecting the corrections, but her efforts there were in vain. Subsequently, she sent a representation to the Regional Centre, Bengaluru. As there was no response, she filed the petition.
It was argued that although more than five months have passed since her husband’s death, the transfer of the pension account has not taken place. The sole reason for the delay is the discrepancy found in her Aadhaar Card. It was submitted that the petitioner has enclosed her husband’s pension order in the typed set of papers, wherein her date of birth is correctly mentioned as “07-06-1952”.
Additionally, in her affidavit, the petitioner stated that she could not resolve the issue at the local level. However, UIDAI submitted that she must appear in person before the Aadhaar Seva Kendra at Madurai.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court took note of the complains by the members of the Bar that there was only one Aadhaar Seva Kendra for all the southern Districts of Tamil Nadu. The Court observed that while address and phone number corrections could be done locally; changes in name, date of birth, and biometric information were required to be done only at the Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Madurai. The Court highlighted the anecdotal evidence suggesting that there were long queues outside the Centre every morning.
The Court emphasised that the Central Government had introduced the Aadhaar regime and that the statute conferred a right on the Aadhaar number holders to seek alteration. The Court observed that the UIDAI is under a correlative duty to make changes on being satisfied that the information warrantsalteration. The Court noted that the issue of physical accessibility has been flagged in the petition and highlighted that the Aadhar number holder is a widow and senior citizen residing in Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.
However, the Court expressed its confusion as to why she had to come all the way to Madurai to enforce her right to alter demographic information in her Aadhaar Card. While acknowledging that biometric changes may require physical presence, the Court emphasised that demographic changes must be made possible at the local level. The Court observed that 4056 Aadhaar enrolment centres in Tamil Nadu could be equipped to handle such requests under Section 31 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (‘Aadhaar Act’).
The Court emphasised that alteration of information in the Aadhaar Card is a statutory function discharged by the Authority and was a form of service. It was highlighted that every Aadhaar number holder has a fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime. The Court observed that once it was concluded that the statutory right under Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act would partake the character of a fundamental right, it will become the duty of the Authority to put in place requisite infrastructure and make available all facilities so that the said right could be easily exercised.
The
The Court highlighted Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was pointed out thatwhen the right to receive benefits is a fundamental right and Aadhaar Card is a mandatory vehicle through which the benefit could be received, the card holder therefore has the concomitant fundamental right to seek alteration of demographic information in the card in terms of Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act and providing such facility would be a hallmark of good governance.
The Court concluded that though the UIDAI was confident that many more Aadhaar Seva Kendras would be established in six months, the petitioner cannot wait till then. Thus, the petitioner had to necessarily appear before the Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Madurai. The Court further directed that the Respondent 2 should expeditiously transfer the pension account in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was allowed accordingly.
[P. Pushpam v. Unique Identification Authority of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9344, decided on 17-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: N. Kamesh
For the Respondents: M. Gnanagurunathan, Central Government Standing Counsel