Kerala High Court Directs UIDAI to Match Suspects' Fingerprints Against the Aadhaar Database
A single Judge of the Kerala High Court has ordered the Unique Identification Authority of India to compare fingerprints against the Aadhaar database for a criminal investigation. The order was made on October 14, 2026, and the way it is confined is as important as what it permits.
The Order
In W.P.(Crl.) No. 639 of 2024, reported as 2026:KER:78637, Mr Justice G. Girish allowed a petition by the State of Kerala, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Palakkad. The investigation concerns a double murder in which some of the suspects remained unidentified.
The operative direction is that the respondents compare the suspects' fingerprints conveyed to them in binary format with the fingerprints stored in the database of the Authority for Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu, and inform the petitioner of the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints are found matching.
The Statutory Route
The Court worked through sections 28, 29 and 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. Sections 28 and 29 impose the confidentiality and sharing restrictions. Sub-section (1) of section 33 lifts some of those restrictions for a disclosure made under an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court.
So the jurisdictional point came first and was satisfied by the forum: this is a disclosure that only the High Court or above can order, which is why the investigating agency was before a writ court rather than a magistrate.
The First Proviso: Who Had to Be Heard
The first proviso to sub-section (1) bars such an order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and to the concerned Aadhaar number holder. The Authority had been heard through the Central Government counsel.
On the number holders, the Court held the requirement redundant on these facts, reasoning that the investigating agency would not need the Authority's assistance if it already knew where those persons were. That is a practical answer to a drafting problem, and it is the part of the order most likely to be argued about in another case.
The Second Proviso: Why the Biometric Bar Was Not Attracted
The second proviso to sub-section (1) provides that core biometric information shall not be disclosed under that sub-section. The Court held the bar inapplicable because the agency was not asking for any fingerprint, iris or other biometric record to be handed over.
What was sought was a comparison carried out by the Authority internally and a report of the whereabouts of any match. On that analysis nothing crosses from the Authority to the police except locations, and whatever follows, including the collection and comparison of fingerprints from the persons so located, proceeds under the ordinary law of investigation.
Privacy and the Technical Objection
The Authority resisted on privacy, relying on the Aadhaar judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy. The Court read that decision's treatment of section 33 as leaving the collection of information for a criminal investigation outside the privacy limitations discussed there, and rejected the objection.
It also rejected a technical objection that static impressions taken from paper could not reliably be compared, noting the material placed before it that images in the common format could be converted to the required binary form using available software and the national automated fingerprint identification system.
The Limit the Court Put on Its Own Order
The second limb of the order records that the direction was issued considering the exceptional facts and circumstances of the case, and that it cannot be cited as a precedent to follow the same course in other cases arising in future.
That is a deliberate and unusual self-limitation, and it should be read as part of the order rather than as a formality. Anyone citing this decision has to confront the sentence in which the Court declined to allow it to be cited.
What the Order Does Not Decide
It does not decide that the hearing of Aadhaar number holders can generally be dispensed with. The Court reached that conclusion on the footing that the agency did not know who or where those persons were, and a case in which the applicant does know them is a different case.
Nor does it decide that a comparison against the database is generally available to an investigating agency. The search was confined to one district on the material placed before the Court, the relief was framed as an output rather than a record, and the order carries its own direction that it not be followed in future matters. Read together, those three features are the order's reach.
Key Takeaways
The forum is the threshold: Sub-section (1) of section 33 permits disclosure only under an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court.
The Authority was heard, the number holders were not: The Court held the hearing of the number holders redundant on these facts.
Nothing biometric was ordered to be handed over: The comparison is carried out internally and only the whereabouts of matches are reported.
The relief was framed to fit the second proviso: A request to transmit biometric records would have met the express bar.
The search was geographically confined: The comparison was limited to the database for Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu.
The order is not to be cited as a precedent: The Court said so in the order itself.
Key Statutory Provisions
Section 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016: Disclosure of information in certain cases. Sub-section (1) lifts specified restrictions for a disclosure made under an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court, subject to a proviso requiring an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the concerned Aadhaar number holder and a proviso barring disclosure of core biometric information.
Section 28 of the Act: Security and confidentiality of information, which carries the restrictions that sub-section (1) of section 33 lifts in part.
Section 29 of the Act: Restriction on sharing information, which carries the further restriction that sub-section (1) of section 33 lifts in part.
Sources and References
Independent report of the same order, with the neutral citation
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, sections 28, 29 and 33
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.
Comments