Central Information Commission
Adarsh Mishra vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 2 March, 2026
CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259
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/2024/641259
Adarsh Mishra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Unique
Identification Authority of ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
India (M/o. Electronics &
I.T.), Lucknow, UP
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.06.2024 FA : 14.08.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 14.08.2024 FAO : 20.08.2024 Hearing : 26.02.2026
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Detailed reasons for the rejection of the Aadhar enrollment
2. List of documents that were found to be insufficient or incorrect, leading to the rejection.
3. Guidelines and criteria used for verifying the submitted documents.
4. Steps and measures to be taken to rectify the issues leading to the rejection.
5. Any other relevant information pertaining to the rejection of the application.Page 1 of 11
CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
िबंदु-1 से 5- अपेि त सूचना अ के आधार से संबंिधत है जोिक आधार ए 2016 की धारा 28 (5), 29 (2) के अ गत एवं आर.टी.आई. ए , 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (J) सपिठत धारा-11 के अ गत आपको दान नहीं िकया जा सकता है , ोंिक ऐसा िकया जाना लोकिहत म आव क नहीं है ।
आपकी सम ा का सं ान लेते ए आपके करण को इस कायालय के संबंिधत अनुभाग को आव क कायवाही हेतु ेिषत िकया जा रहा है। संबंिधत ारा िनवासी के आधार म दज ई-मेल आई.डी. आर.टी.आई, आवेदन प म उ खत ई-मेल आई.डी. पर िनयमानुसार जानकारी दान की जायेगी
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Shri Akashdeep, Director- participated in the hearing through video- conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the Respondent completely failed to appreciate that the Appellant is not a third party but the natural guardian of his minor child and hence he is entitled to get the desired information. Furthermore, as per Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, the provisions contained under the RTI Act will have an overriding effect and would thus prevail over any other law i.e., the Aadhar Act, 2016.
Page 2 of 11CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 He averred that the matter has not been resolved and he has not received any message on his registered mobile number regarding successful enrollment/allotment of Aadhar number of his minor child. He averred that he sought generic information regarding the reason for rejection of the Aadhar enrollment and steps to be taken for rectification, i.e. general SOP followed for rectifying rejected enrollment. A written submission dated 18.02.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Initial Request: On August 3, 2024, an RTI application was filed seeking the reasons for the rejection of an Aadhaar enrollment (No. 0013/32007/19059) for a three-year-old minor son, Shashwat Mishra.
CPIO Rejection: On August 15, 2024, the CPIO denied the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, claiming the information pertained to "another person" and its disclosure was not in the public interest.
First Appeal: An appeal was filed on August 14, 2024, arguing that as the natural guardian of the minor, the appellant is not a "third party". Reference was made to a previous CIC ruling (File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003059/DP).
FAA Order: On August 20, 2024, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the CPIO's decision via a summary order, stating the reply was appropriate and objective without addressing the guardianship argument.
2. GROUNDS FOR SUBMISSION A. Legal Standing as Natural Guardian The information sought pertains to the rejection of an Aadhaar application for a three-year-old minor.Page 3 of 11
CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 Under Indian law, a father is the natural guardian of his minor child. The CPIO'S contention that a father is "another person" or a "third party" to his own minor son is legally untenable.
As established in the CIC decision (File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/003059/DP), information regarding a minor must be provided to their legal natural guardian. The CPIO's failure to apply this precedent constitutes a lack of reasonable mind.
B. Misinterpretation of Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy Claims Section 8(1)(j) is intended to protect against the "unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual."
Seeking reasons for the rejection of a child's Aadhaar enrollment is a functional necessity for the child's welfare and right to identity. It does not constitute an invasion of privacy when sought by the natural guardian.
Furthermore, under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Administrative reasons for enrollment rejection fall squarely within this category.
C. Rebuttal to Aadhaar Act and "Public Interest Objections Overriding Effect: While the CPIO cited Sections 28(5) and 29(2) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Section 22 of the RTI Act provides an overriding effect over any inconsistent provisions in other laws.
Unauthorized vs. Authorized Disclosure: The Aadhaar Act restricts disclosure to unauthorized third parties, it does not bar disclosure to the legal guardian who is responsible for the minor's enrollment and identity rights.
Page 4 of 11CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 Public Interest: The CPIO's claim that disclosure is not in the public interest is flawed. Ensuring a minor child receives their identity document to access state benefits is a matter of both private and significant public interest.
D. Evasive Conduct of the CPIO The CPIO stated the matter was "forwarded to another section" to provide info via email. This is an attempt to bypass the statutory obligations of the RTI Act. A CPIO cannot discharge their duty by promising a response through informal departmental channels; they are legally bound to provide the information within the RTI framework.
E. Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) The FAA failed to pass a 'speaking order." Despite specific legal grounds regarding guardianship being raised, the FAA issued a pro-forma response without a reasoned analysis of the appellant's arguments.
3. NATURE OF INFORMATION SOUGHT (SECTION 2(f) JUSTIFICATION) Point 1 (Detailed reasons for rejection): The Appellant seeks any relevant document, internal log, error code, or note added by the verifier/officer that records the specific nature of the error. This includes material in any physical or electronic form as per Section 2(f).
Point 2 (List of insufficient documents): A request for the factual record or list of deficiencies identified during processing.
Point 3 (Guidelines and criteria): Refers to official manuals and verification protocols which are subject to proactive disclosure under Section 4(1)(b).
Point 4 (Steps for rectification): A request for the official Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or administrative protocol for rectifying rejected enrollments.
Page 5 of 11CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 Point 5 (Other relevant info): Pertains to internal file notes, correspondence, or logs generated during the processing of the Enrollment ID..."
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the matter has been resolved and Aadhar number has been allotted to the minor child of Appellant. He further stated that the reason for rejection of Aadhar enrollment in the instant case was non-scannable birth certificate of the minor child. He further stated that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information of third party and same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and also as per section of 28(5) & 29 (2) of Aadhaar Act, 2016, the information was denied. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act) and amendment thereto restrict the sharing of information collected or created under the said Act except as per the provisions of the Aadhaar Act or Regulations framed there under. The only exception on the restriction on sharing of information is provided under section 33 of the Aadhaar Act. As per Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as amended by the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, any disclosure of information (other than core biometric information), including identity information or authentication records can be made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court after giving opportunity of hearing to both UIDAI and the concerned Aadhaar number holder. He further stated that the information regarding the reasons for rejection etc can be accessed online by using the registered mobile number.
7. 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 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 is other appropriate forum (s) for resolving such matters. A written submission dated 17.02.2026 Page 6 of 11 CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 in this regard has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..It is submitted that UIDAI, Regional Office Lucknow had received applicant's RTT application dated -03.08.2024 (Annexure-1) received on 05.08.2024 and reply has been sent to the applicant on 14.08.2024 (Annexure-2). The applicant's first appeal dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-3), which was received in this office was also replied by the appellate authority on 20.08.2024 (Annexure-4). There was no delay in disposal of the RTI application and the first appeal. Replies were also provided to the applicant.
2. In the above cited RTI application, the applicant had requested information regarding Aadhaar of another Aadhaar holder Shashwat Mishra, who he claims is his son.
3. Information sought by the applicant was not provided to the applicant as the same was not related to applicant's Aadhaar, rather it was related to a different person and therefore, as per Section 8(1) (j) of The Right To Information Act, 2005 and also as per section of 28(5) & 29 (2) of Aadhaar Act, 2016, the information was denied. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act) and amendment thereto restrict the sharing of information collected or created under the said Act except as per the provisions of the Aadhaar Act or Regulations framed there under.
The only exception on the restriction on sharing of information is provided under section 33 of the Aadhaar Act and amendment thereto. As per Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as amended by the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, any disclosure of information (other than core biometric information), including identity information or authentication records can be made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court after giving opportunity of hearing to both UIDAI and the concerned Aadhaar number holder.Page 7 of 11
CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259
4. In view of the sections of RTI Act 2005 and relevant provisions of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 as narrated, the applicant was denied information relating to Aadhaar of another person.
5. The Hon'ble CIC, in the following similar matters, has held that disclosure of third party Aadhaar information has been rightly denied:-
(1) CIC Appeal No. CIC/LIDAI/A/2018/138034/02922 dated 18.02.2020 filed by Shri Chakradhar (il) CIC Appeal No. CIC/AJIDAI/A/2018/171026 dated 25.02.2020 filed by Ms. Mamta Kumari.
iii) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/122147 dated 01.10.2019 filed by Shri Harbans Singh.
( (iv) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/122126 01.10.2019 filed by Shri Vikas Agarwal.
(v) CIC. Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2020/671776 dated 22.11.2021 filed by Shri Aamir Abbas
(vi) CIC Appeal No CIC/MOEIT/A/2023/102910 dated 11.03.2024 filed by Shri Krishna Mohan Tiwari.
(vii) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/610574 dated 18.04.2024 filed by Shri Aman Singh
(viii) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/624734 dated 20.06.2024 filed by Shri Rajendra Singh.
(ix) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/109821 dated 26.06.2024 filed by Shri Virendra Singh Sangwan.
(ix) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/100452 dated 22.07.2024 filed by Shri Rajeev Kumar.
Page 8 of 11CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 (X) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/146330 dated 13.09.2024 filed by Shri Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri ( xi) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/615896 dated 23.10.2024 filed by Shri Desh Kumar (xii) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/608427 dated 12.03.2025 filed by Shri Rahul Rastogi "In the case mentioned at (1), the Hon'ble CIC observed that from the perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an apt reply was provided by the CPIO as the information sought by the appellant is purely in the nature of personal information of third party and hence exempted us 1)(1) of RTI Act. The appellant should note that even though he claims to be the son of Smt. Kailasha. however, under the RTI Act, he is considered to be a third party if he is asking information not regarding his own activities. In view of the submissions given by the respondent and the above observations, there is no scope for grinting any relief in the matter. Hence no further action lies"
In the case, mentioned at (ii), the Hon'ble CIC observed that the appellant could not substantiate any larger public interest in disclosure of the information. Moreover, the appellant has every right to approach the competent Authority of UIDAI to lodge a complaint against a third party, in case of manipulation of document. However, in so far as the relief sought under the RTI act is concerned, the same cannot be granted. In view of the submission of CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies In the case, mentioned at (iii) to (xii), the Hon'ble CIC has held that disclosure of third party Aadhaar information has been rightly denied..."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding reasons for rejection of enrolment of his minor and matters relating thereto on Page 9 of 11 CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 5 points. It is observed that 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 privacy of an individual. Furthermore, information regarding reasons for rejection is available on the online portal which can be accessed by using the registered mobile number. However, generic information regarding guidelines and criteria used for verifying the submitted documents for enrollment of Aadhar and steps and measures to be taken to rectify the issues leading to the rejection should be provided and same cannot be said to be personal information of an individual. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to furnish revised reply with respect to point No. 3 and 4 of the RTI Application i.e. specifically furnish only generic information regarding guidelines and criteria used for verifying the submitted documents for enrollment of Aadhar by any individual and steps and measures to be taken by any individual to rectify the issues leading to the rejection, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Page 10 of 11 CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/641259 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Director & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India (M/o. Electronics & I.T.), Regional Office, TC-46-V, 3rd Floor, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 (Uttar Pradesh) 2 Adarsh Mishra Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)