Privacy cannot shield forgery accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court orders release of Aadhaar details to police

“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,” the court noted in its order dated May 7.

A bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R Raghunandan Rao set aside the single judge’s order dismissing the plea.

Plea for Aadhaar details

• According to the appellant, two sale deeds were allegedly executed in 2021 after the accused created an Aadhaar card in his name and impersonated him. A criminal case was thereafter registered, while a civil suit challenging the sale deeds was also instituted.
• An interim injunction was issued restraining the parties in the said suit, who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3, from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the said land.
• The district registrar and inspector of registration offices in Visakhapatnam, took cognizance of a complaint filed by the son of the appellant and cancelled the said deeds of sale.
• The appellant, while pursuing the complaint, had sought the details of the Aadhaar Card along with the biometric information available under such Aadhaar Card from UIDAI.
• This request made under the Right to Information Act was rejected by UIDAI on the ground that such information cannot be given in view of the bar under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act

Section 8(1)(j) provides that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy unless the central public information officer or the state public information officer or the appellate authority, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The single judge dismissed the appellant’s plea, holding that disclosure of Aadhaar information could only be made under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 upon an order of a court not inferior to a High Court or in cases involving national security.

The single judge held that since no application had been filed by the commissioner of police for such information, it could not direct UIDAI to furnish such information.

Appearing for the appellant, advocate G Jhansi argued that the investigation into the allegedly fraudulent execution of the sale deeds would fail unless further information was obtained from the UIDAI authorities.

She argued that the alleged act of forgery committed by the accused was a serious offence and that persons involved in such crimes should not be allowed to escape liability merely by invoking the right to privacy.

Question of privacy doesn’t arise

The court observed that there is no absolute prohibition against the release of such details.

“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,” the court noted.

The court held that a person accused of committing forgery for personal gain cannot be allowed to evade investigation or liability merely by invoking the protection of privacy rights.

The bench further noted that the Aadhaar card in question was allegedly issued in the appellant’s own name and therefore “the question of privacy also may not arise.”

Therefore, the court directed the UIDAI to furnish such information as is permissible under the Aadhaar Act to the investigating authorities within three weeks for purposes of investigation in the forgery case.