Central Information Commission
Ishan Bharti vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 28 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/116674
Ishan Bharti ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Unique Identification
Authority of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Chandigarh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.12.2022 FA : 13.01.2023 SA : 11.04.2023
CPIO : 19.12.2022 FAO : 06.02.2023 Hearing : 12.01.2026
Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Under the given background of facts, I seek following information in my capacity to reaffirm information available with me:
1. Have you received any letter/ Certificate of Address issued on UIDAI standard certificate format for enrolment/ update from any elected representative certifying address of my minor daughter Pranaya Bharti and whether it has been stated in the said letter/ Certificate that I am also residing with my daughter at the new altered address of my daughter in her Aadhar Card?Page 1 of 15
If yes, then please provide name and details of the elected representative who has issued letter/ certificate and also provide a copy of such letter/ Certificate of Address issued on UIDAI standard certificate format for enrolment/ update.
2. Whether Mrs. Brahmita Monga has submitted a "SELF- DECLARATION FROM THE HEAD OF FAMILY (HOF) FOR SHARING ADDRESS WITH A RELATIVE RESIDING AT THE SAME ADDRESS" as proof of relationship documents containing name of applicant and name of Head of family as per the format prescribed in Aadhaar Regulations "LIST OF ACCEPTABLE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION".
3. Whether the above SELF-DECLARATION has been signed by Mrs. Brahmita Monga? If yes, then please provide a copy of the self-declaration signed by Mrs. Brahmita Monga.
4. Who is the person responsible by post in UIDAI to make the changes in Aadhar in this case? Please provide name with designation of authorized person of UIDAI in this regard.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"जन सूचना अिधिनयम, 2005 के अंतगत ा आपके चार ऑनलाइन आवेदन प ों पंजीकरण सं ा UIDAI/R/E/22/01439 िदनां क 16.11.2022, UIDAI/R/E/22/01453 िदनांक 20.11.2022, UIDAI/R/E/22/01524 िदनां क 04.12.2022 तथा UIDAI/R/E/22/01525 िदनां क 04.12.2022; जोिक इस कायालय म मशः 21.11.2022। 22.11.2022 तथा 06.12.2022 Page 2 of 15 (आ खरी दो) को ा ए ह; के संदभ म आपको सूिचत िकया जाता है िक आपके ारा मां गी गई जानकारी संब त अनुभाग से ा कर ली गई है, जोिक इस प के साथ संल है ।
"..िब दु सं ा 1:, 2 तथा 3: वां िछत सू चना के स म, आधार अिधिनयम की धारा
28(5) पर ान आकिषत िकया जाता है जोिक िन ानुसार है:-
"धारा 28(5): त मय वृत, िकसी अ िविध म अंतिव िकसी बात के होते ए भी
और इस अिधिनयम म अ था उपबंिधत के िसवाय, ािधकरण या उसके कोई
अिधकारी या अ कमचारी या कोई ऐसा अिभकरण जो िक क ीय पहचान डाटा
िन ेपागार (CIDR) को बनाए रखता है . अपनी सेवा के दौरान या उसके प ात, क ीय पहचान डाटा िन ेपागार म भंडा रत कोई सू चना या अिध माणन अिभलेख िकसी को कट नहीं करे गा:
पर ु कोई आधार सं ा धारक, ऐसी रीित से जो िचिनयमों ारा िविनिद की जाए, ािधकरण से उसकी कोर बायोमेिटक सूचना को अपविजत करते ए, उसकी पहचान सूचना दे ने के िलए अनुरोध कर सकता है ।"
आवेदक ारा अपेि त जानकारी क ीय पहचान डाटा िन े पागार (CIDR) का िह ा है और इसे िकसी के साथ साझा नहीं िकया जा सकता है ।
िब दु सं ा 4: आधार म अ तन के िलए कोई िवशेष अिधकारी िज े दार नहीं होता है । आधार िनमाण/अ तन एक ि या है जो िविभ चरणों से हो कर गुजरती है । िनदासी ारा आधार िनमाण/अ तन के िलए ुत िकए द ावेजों की कई रों पर जाँ च होने के बाद ही कोई आधार बनाया/अपडे ट िकया जाता है।"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 3 of 154. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.04.2023.
Hearing proceedings (12.01.2026)
5. The instant matter was earlier listed before this Commission on 20.09.2023 wherein both the parties were heard at length, and the matter was adjourned due to paucity of time. The matter was again listed on 26.09.2023 wherein the Appellant submitted that his advocate was well versed with the case and due to some medical issues, he could not appear before the Commission and accordingly. The matter was thus adjourned with the below- mentioned observations:
"..5.2 The respondent while defending their case reiterated their stand and denied the information under section 28(5) of Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. They further submitted that they were bound not only by the RTI Act but also by the rules and regulations of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and service) Act, 2016.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information regarding changes made in the Aadhar card of his minor daughter Kumari Pranaya Bharti. The appellant submitted that his advocate was well versed with the case and due to some medical issues he did not appear before the Commission. Therefore, the appellant requested for adjournment and the respondent raised no objection. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: (12.01.2026) Appellant: Not present Page 4 of 15 Respondent: Shri Sonu Kumar Kothari, Director, Regional Office, UIDAI, Chandigarh- participated in the hearing.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both parties.
6. The Respondent, inter alia, submitted that the Appellant had sought information regarding documents that were submitted for address updation of his daughter's Aadhaar. In this context, it is submitted that Aadhaar Enrolment/Update of an individual/resident is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and prevailing Aadhaar (Enrolment & Update) Regulations, 2016 as amended from time to time. As the information provided (including the prescribed documents) by such individual/resident to UIDAI for generation of Aadhaar Number/updating demographic or biometric information under the said Act is personal and confidential in nature. Any such information forms part of Central Identity Data Repository (hereinafter referred to as "CIDR") database upon enrolment/updation. Sharing of such stored information is prohibited under Section 28(5) of Aadhaar Act, 2016. As regard point No. 4 of the RTI Application, no specific official is solely responsible for Aadhaar updates. Aadhaar enrolment or update is a multi-stage process. An Aadhaar is generated or updated only after the documents submitted by the resident are verified at multiple levels. A written submission dated 08.01.2026 has been received from Shri S.K. Kothari, Director, Regional Office, UIDAI, Chandigarh and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..I am to refer to Notice of Hearing (File no.
CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/116674)
dated 24.12.2025 of the appeal/complaint filed by Shri Ishan Bharti R/o Flat no. 202, Block no.21, Heritage City Sector-25, MG Road, Chakarpur, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 which has been listed for second hearing before Hon'ble Information Commissioner Mr. P R Ramesh on 12.01.2026 at 11:50 AM.
Page 5 of 152. In the above mentioned case, Shri Ishan Bharti vide his RTI application Reg. no. UIDAI/R/E/22/01524 dated 04.12.2022 received in this office on 06.12.2022 had sought information regarding supporting document used for address updation in the Aadhaar xxxx-xxxx-7871 and designation of the officer responsible in UIDAI to make changes in Aadhaar in his daughter's case. The CPIO vide letter dated 19.12.2022 provided all possible information to the applicant majorly seeking documents with which updation in Aadhaar of Pranaya Bharti was carried out.
3. Thereafter, the appellant lodged an appeal under registration no. UIDAI/A/E/23/00013 dated 17.01.2023 with First Appellate Authority of this office stating that his wife Smt. Brahmita Monga/Brahmita Bharti has not been living with him since 24.07.2022 and she without his consent, is getting their daughter's Aadhaar updated. Since the applicant-appellant is the father of Kumari Pranaya Bharti, he had requested to provide the sought information as mentioned in Para no. 2 above. Apart from this, the applicant-appellant had also referred to the order passed by Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the matters of Shri Ravi Jindal 4. Now, the applicant-appellant has approached the Hon'ble Central Information Commission by way of second appeal. The gist of grounds taken by applicant-appellant vis-à-vis factual and legal position may kindly be considered please:
(A) Arbitrarily denial to supply the information by CPIO: Respondents have erroneously and arbitrarily refused to supply information sought by the Appellant in the instant matter.
Factual/Legal Position: The applicant had sought information regarding documents that were submitted for address updation in his daughter's Aadhaar. In this context, it is submitted that Aadhaar Enrolment/Update Page 6 of 15 of an individual/resident is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act. 2016 (as amended in 2019) (hereinafter referred to as "Aadhaar Act, 2016") and prevailing Aadhaar (Enrolment & Update) Regulations, 2016 as amended from time to time. As the information provided (including the prescribed documents) by such Individual/resident to UIDAI for generation of Aadhaar Number/updating demographic or biometric information under the said Act is personal and confidential in nature. Any such information forms part of Central Identity Data Repository (hereinafter referred to as "CIDR") database upon enrolment/updation. Sharing of such stored information is prohibited under Section 28(5) of Aadhaar Act, 2016 which is being reproduced as follows:
"28. Security and confidentiality of information-
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority of any of its officers or other employees or any agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) shall not, whether during his service or thereafter, reveal any information stored in Central Identities Data Repository or authentication record to anyone:
Provided that an Aadhaar number holder may request the Authority to provide access to his identity information excluding his core biometric information in such manner as may be specified by regulations".
Thus, in view of the above statutory provision, the sought information could not be provided.
(8) RTI has overriding effect: RTI Act, 2005 would prevail over the provisions of any other law.
Page 7 of 15Factual/Legal Position: It is pertinent to mention here that various sections of Aadhaar Act. 2016 has non-obstante clause. Section 28(5) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 is being reproduced here as follows:
"28. Security and confidentiality of information-
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority of any of its officers or other employees or any agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository, (CIDR) shall not, whether during his service or thereafter, reveal any information stored in Central Identities Data Repository or authentication record to anyone:
Provided that an Aadhaar number holder may request the Authority to provide access to his identity information excluding his core biometric information in such manner as may be specified by regulations".
A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 28(5) clearly shows that the said provision will prevail irrespective of any other law for the time being in force.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of decisions such as Bank of India vs. Ketan Prakash & Ors. passed in the year 2008 has observed that if two enactments have competing non-obstante provision and nothing repugnant, then the non-obstante clause of the subsequent statute/Act would prevail over the earlier enactments.
The Aadhaar Act 2016 has been enacted subsequent to the enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005.
Therefore, considering the non-obstante clause of Section 28(5) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (armended in 2019) and the Aadhaar Act, 2016 being Page 8 of 15 the later enactment prevails over the formerly enacted Right to Information Act, 2005.
(C) FAA has wrongly justified the reply of CPIO regarding non-supply of information to the RTI applicant: Respondent no. 2 ie. FAA has wrongly distinguished decision of Hon'ble CIC in order to unreasonably justify non-supply of information to the Appellant.
Factual/Legal Position: The applicant had sought all the documents used to update his daughter's Aadhaar. As already intimated that all the documents of an Aadhaar number holder form part of CIDR which is maintained by Authority. Thus, the same cannot be disclosed as per Section 28(5) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (as amended in 2019). Further, Regulation 3(4) of the Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016 gives Authority (UIDAI) a right to share demographic information and photograph, and the authentication records of an Aadhaar number holder but only when required to do so in accordance with Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 which is the only exception on the restriction on sharing of information under this Act. The relevant extract of Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 is being reproduced here as follows for your kind perusal:
"33. Disclosure of information in certain cases: (1) Nothing contained in sub-section(2) or sub-section(5) of section 28 or sub-section(2) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made pursuant to an order or a court not inferior to that of Judge of a High Court.
Provided that no order by the court under this sub-section shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the concerned Aadhaar number holder.Page 9 of 15
Provided further that the core biometric information shall not be disclosed under this sub-section.
(D) Non-compliance with section 11 of RTI Act, 2005: The applicant-
appellant is aggrieved with non-invocation of section 11 of RTI Act. 2005 in his case.
Factual/Legal Position: The applicant-appellant had mentioned various cases in his First Appeal where Hon'ble CIC had directed to invoke section 11 of RTI Act. 2005. The applicant-appellant was aggrieved that CPIO did not ensure compliance with Section 11 of RTI act, 2005 in his case too. It is submitted that section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 is invoked where sought information pertains to "Third Party' and through this section his/her consent is taken before divulging such information to the applicant. The instant matter of Shri Ishan Bharti has never been placed under "third party' category by CPIO. So, the question of invoking section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 does not arise in this case.
(E) Non-compliance to the binding precedents i.e. decisions given by Hon'ble CIC: The respondents ought to have supplied information to the Appellant in compliance to the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and binding precedents given by Hon'ble Commission in similar case.
Factual/Legal Position: At the time of filing first appeal the applicant- appellant had referred to the order passed by Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the matters of Shri Ravi Jindal vs. CPIO, UIDAI Regional Office-Chandigarh whereby Hon'ble CIC had directed UIDAI to follow follow due procedure prescribed u/s 11 of the RTI Act and issue notice to the third party. In this context, it is submitted that in the case of Ravi Jindal, information was denied u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as the sought information was personal in nature. But the instant matter of Shri Ishan Bharti has never been placed under "third party Page 10 of 15 category by CPIO. So, the question of invoking section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 does not arise in this case.
The Appellant Reference is invited to a similar case titled Shri Rahul Rajan Shinde vs. CPIO, UIDAI, Regional Office-Mumbal decided by Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi on 11.08.2021 where the appellant had sought documents along with change request form to make changes in the Aadhaar of his minor daughter (Rajul Rahul Shinde, Age-6 years that time). That was also a family dispute case and the child was living with her maternal Grand-father. In the said case, the Hon'ble CIC had upheld the submission of the CPIO, UIDAI, RO-Mumbai and found the denial of furnishing information justified and apt even u/s 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act. 2005. Hon'ble CIC had also observed that the question regarding disclosure of information of minor child could not be decided solely on the basis of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole criterion of the interest and welfare of the minor and it was also considered in the case as to who had the physical custody of the minor.
In the instant case, at the time of replying to the First Appeal It was learnt that there is court case pending before the appropriate Court regarding the custody of the minor child and the mother had the physical custody of the child. Besides, the Authority is not aware about the present situation between both the parties viz. Shri Ishan Bharti and Smt. Bhramita Bharti/Monga. The appellant had requested for documents used for his daughter's Aadhaarupdaion, Such documents carry the address of the resident.
Further, even if, had such information been shared with anyone, it would have also attracted the sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as such disclosure would be an invasion of some other resident's privacy.
Page 11 of 15(F) Non following of procedure under law and non applying judicial mind by FAA while passing order: The Respondents should have followed due procedure of law and FAA must have applied judicial mind while misinterpretation applicable legal provisions.
Factual/Legal Position: In this regard it is clarified that the information available and permissible for disclosure has already been provided to the applicant-appellant within the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 and Aadhaar Act, 2016.
5. Besides, Hon'ble CIC has always impressed upon the fact that RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. Reference is also invited to CIC Decision dated 10.06.2024 in another matter of Shri Ishan Bharti vs. Director & CPIO, UIDAI. (second appeal no. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/116673) on the similar issues regarding address updation in Aadhaar of his daughter Pranaya Bharti. The decision of Hon'ble CIC is as under:
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter."
It is, therefore, requested to Hon'ble Information Commissioner to kindly consider the above mentioned facts while hearing the case..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding documents used and official responsible for changes made in the Aadhar card of his Page 12 of 15 minor daughter Kumari Pranaya Bharti specifically the documents used and the official responsible for the updating the address in the Aadhar card of his minor daughter.
8. Commission observes that similar issue has been decided by this Commission in File No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2020/600406, titled as Rahul Rajan Shinde v CPIO, Regional Office, Mumbai, UIDAI, where the Appellant had sought copies of documents along with the change request form for effecting changes in the Aadhaar details of his minor daughter, namely Rajul Rahul Shinde, who was about 6 years of age at the relevant time.
The case pertained to a family dispute, wherein the minor child was residing with her maternal grandfather. In the aforesaid case, the this Commission upheld the submissions of the CPIO, UIDAI, RO-Mumbai, and held that the denial of information was justified and appropriate, including under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the complainant is aggrieved as according to him the information was wrongly denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as he being the father & the sole surviving parent of his minor daughter is well within his rights to get the desired information. Per contra, the CPIO in his reply had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the present case, it is noted that the complainant is the only surviving parent of the minor, Ms Rajul and therefore he is the natural guardian of Ms Rajul, however, the question regarding the disclosure of information of the minor child cannot be decided solely on the basis of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole criterion of the interest and welfare of the minor and it is also to be considered as to who has the physical custody of the minor.
It is further noted that the FAA in his order had stated that the there is an issue of custody of minor's residence and there is a court case pending in this regard. Therefore, considering the fact that the FAA had a limited issue to determine i.e. the sharing of the requested information rather than going into the issue of custody of the minor, the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA both are proper and as rightly stated by the FAA that pendency of Page 13 of 15 any court case cannot be construed as larger public interest and therefore the CPIO was right in claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the complaint is not established..."
9. Commission observes that as per UIDAI Regulation 28 (5) sharing of data stored in CIDR is not permitted and had such information been shared with anyone, it would have also attracted sections 8 (1)(g) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as such disclosure would be an invasion of some other resident's privacy. As regards the name of the official responsible for Aadhaar updates, it has been clarified by the PIO during hearing that Adhaar update is a multi-stage process and there is no specific official who is solely responsible for such updates. Furthermore, an Aadhaar is generated or updated only after the documents submitted by the resident are verified at multiple levels
10. It is worthwhile to mention that a similar case of same Appellant has been already decided by this Commission in File No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/116673 wherein the Appellant had sought similar information related to changes made in the Adhar Card of his daughter. In the aforesaid case the Commission upheld the submissions of CPIO. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The instant matter of Shri Ishan Bharti has never been placed under 'third party' category by CPIO. So the question of invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 does not arise. Moreover, had Shri Ishan Bharti sought his own information the same would not have been provided to him as Section 28 (5) of the Aadhar Act does not allow them to do so. Regarding the contention of the Appellant that the RTI Act as per Section 22 of the Act has an overriding effect over any other law, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India vs Ketan Prakash & Ors, 2008 wherein the Court observed that if two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute/ act would prevail over the earlier enactment. Therefore the Aadhar Act Page 14 of 15 2016 (amended in 2019) being the later enactment should prevail over the formerly enacted RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/ disputes and there are other appropriate forum (s) for resolving such matters..."
11. In view of foregoing, Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Furthermore, the written submission filed by the PIO is self- explanatory and comprehensive. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not required in the instant matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the Director & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India, UIDAI Regional Office, S.C.O. No.-95-98, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh-160017.
2 Ishan Bharti Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)