Verdictum: Hyderabad: Wednesday, 10Th June 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering an appeal in a matter pertaining to a property dispute.
While asking the Unique
Identification Authority of India to release the biometric and Aadhar
information of an accused in a forgery and fraud case to the Police for
investigation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that there is no absolute
bar for the release of such information under the Aadhaar Act. The High Court
also held that a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of forgery
for personal gain cannot be permitted to get away with such an offence on the
ground of protection of his privacy.
The High Court was considering an appeal in a matter pertaining to a property dispute.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R Raghunandan Rao held, “As can be seen from the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, there is no absolute bar for release of such information. However, such information, as is permissible under the provisions of the Aadhar Act 2016, can be released only after necessary safeguards are in place. It is for that purpose that the release of such information is restricted and is permissible only when an order of a court which is not inferior to a High Court is obtained.”
“In the present case, a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of forgery for personal gain, cannot be permitted to get away with such an offence, if he has committed such an offence, on the ground of protection of his privacy. In any event, the Aadhaar Card is officially said to have been issued in the name of appellant himself. In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise”, it added.
The appellant, who claimed ownership over certain land, came to know that the person arrayed as the private respondent had impersonated the appellant by creating an Aadhaar Card. It was alleged that he fraudulently executed two deeds of sale in favour of the fourth respondent. The appellant, upon coming to know of the execution and registration of these documents, had filed a First Information Report as well as a declaration that the aforesaid deeds of sale were void and not binding on the appellant. An interim injunction was issued restraining the parties in the said suit from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the said land. The District Registrar and Inspector of Registration Offices took cognisance of a complaint filed by the son of the appellant and cancelled the said deeds of sale. The said orders of cancellation were challenged by the fourth respondent.
The appellant, while pursuing the complaint given by the appellant, sought the details of the Aadhaar Card along with the biometric information available under such Aadhaar Card from Unique Identification Authority of India. This request made under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the Authority on the ground that such information cannot be given in view of the bar under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As the information was not being given, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Police for such information to be obtained. The appellant, thereafter, approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the order of rejection should be declared illegal. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the appeal.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Bench held that there is no absolute bar for the release of such information. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Aadhaar Card was officially said to have been issued in the name of the appellant himself. “In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise”, it stated.
The Bench thus held that the said information should be released by the Unique Identification Authority of India to the Commissioner of Police and Station House Office for purposes of proceeding with the investigation. “Respondents 2 & 3 shall release such information, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, to respondent No.6”, it further ordered.
Cause Title: Shri Sitaramanjaneyulu Elaprolu v. The Union Of India (Writ Appeal No.:252 of 2026)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Jhansi Guduru
The Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering an appeal in a matter pertaining to a property dispute.
 |
Chief Justice Lisa Gill, Justice R Raghunandan
Rao, Andhra Pradesh High Court |
The High Court was considering an appeal in a matter pertaining to a property dispute.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R Raghunandan Rao held, “As can be seen from the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, there is no absolute bar for release of such information. However, such information, as is permissible under the provisions of the Aadhar Act 2016, can be released only after necessary safeguards are in place. It is for that purpose that the release of such information is restricted and is permissible only when an order of a court which is not inferior to a High Court is obtained.”
“In the present case, a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of forgery for personal gain, cannot be permitted to get away with such an offence, if he has committed such an offence, on the ground of protection of his privacy. In any event, the Aadhaar Card is officially said to have been issued in the name of appellant himself. In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise”, it added.
The appellant, who claimed ownership over certain land, came to know that the person arrayed as the private respondent had impersonated the appellant by creating an Aadhaar Card. It was alleged that he fraudulently executed two deeds of sale in favour of the fourth respondent. The appellant, upon coming to know of the execution and registration of these documents, had filed a First Information Report as well as a declaration that the aforesaid deeds of sale were void and not binding on the appellant. An interim injunction was issued restraining the parties in the said suit from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the said land. The District Registrar and Inspector of Registration Offices took cognisance of a complaint filed by the son of the appellant and cancelled the said deeds of sale. The said orders of cancellation were challenged by the fourth respondent.
The appellant, while pursuing the complaint given by the appellant, sought the details of the Aadhaar Card along with the biometric information available under such Aadhaar Card from Unique Identification Authority of India. This request made under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the Authority on the ground that such information cannot be given in view of the bar under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As the information was not being given, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Police for such information to be obtained. The appellant, thereafter, approached the High Court seeking a declaration that the order of rejection should be declared illegal. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed by a Single Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the appeal.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Bench held that there is no absolute bar for the release of such information. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Aadhaar Card was officially said to have been issued in the name of the appellant himself. “In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise”, it stated.
The Bench thus held that the said information should be released by the Unique Identification Authority of India to the Commissioner of Police and Station House Office for purposes of proceeding with the investigation. “Respondents 2 & 3 shall release such information, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, to respondent No.6”, it further ordered.
Cause Title: Shri Sitaramanjaneyulu Elaprolu v. The Union Of India (Writ Appeal No.:252 of 2026)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Jhansi Guduru
.JPG)
.JPG)
