Keywords: UIDAI, RTI act, right to privacy
A single-judge ruling instructing the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to reevaluate a woman’s request for information about her husband’s Aadhaar card under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was recently overturned by the Karnataka High Court.
A marriage does not supersede an individual’s right to privacy, which is recognized under the Aadhaar Act, according to the division bench of Justices Sunil Dutt Yadav and Vijaykumar A. Patil.
The Aadhaar number holder’s right to privacy protects the individual’s autonomy, which is granted priority and allows for no exceptions within the statutory structure. As a union of two people, marriage does not supersede an individual’s right to privacy, and the Court held that an individual’s autonomy over their right to privacy is recognized and safeguarded by the hearing process outlined in Section 33. The Court reasoned that the hearing process outlined in Section 33 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 protects such a right.
A High Court judge may, pursuant to Section 33, order the release of identity information or authentication data after giving the UIDAI and the owner of the Aadhaar number a chance to present their case. The Court concluded that the procedural right of hearing granted by Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act is not eliminated by marriage alone.
The division bench in this instance determined that the single-judge could not have referred the case to the UIDAI since a court not lower than a High Court is authorized to have a hearing and make a decision under Section 33. The procedural right of hearing granted by Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act remains intact despite marriage. The Court clarified that the Aadhaar Act, which emphasizes the value of the right to privacy, cannot be diminished by giving that right to a lower authority.
The decision was made In response to a woman who was having marital problems with her husband and wanted to know his Aadhaar details. Her spouse was previously ordered by a family court to provide a specific amount of monthly maintenance to her and their daughter. The woman’s husband’s whereabouts were unknown, so she was unable to enforce the maintenance order. As a result, she had requested information about the address details in her husband’s Aadhaar from the UIDAI using the Right to Information Act. According to UIDAI, a High Court judge alone has the authority to make a decision on this matter.
A Karnataka High Court single judge ordered the UIDAI to notify the woman’s husband in February of this year, and upon hearing from him, to re-evaluate the wife’s RTI application. In an appeal before the High Court’s division bench, the UIDAI contested the ruling. The division bench came to the conclusion that the case could only have been heard by the High Court or a higher court and could not have been returned to the UIDAI. As a result, the division bench returned the case to the single judge. The woman’s husband ought to be named as a respondent in the case, the division bench further declared. The division bench further stated that a copy of the order should be sent to the Registrar of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, for appropriate attention. The appellants, the Deputy Director General, and the Central Public Information Officer of the UIDAI were all represented by attorney Shivraj S. Balloli. Attorney Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath acted as the respondent’s (wife’s) representative.
References:
Anushka Shukla, Faculty of law, University Of Lucknow, Intern at Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments