Central Information Commission
Jaydeep Rana vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 5 March, 2026
CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061
Jaydeep Rana ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Unique
Identification Authority of ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
India (M/o. E. & I.T.-MeitY),
Mumbai, MH
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 21.11.2024 FA : 06.12.2024 Complaint : 29.12.2024
CPIO : 05.12.2024 FAO : 16.12.2024 Hearing : 26.02.2026
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Which type quality of document required for aadhaar update.
2. Which type of defects found above each applications.
3. Name, designation and contact of the officers, who have rejected each application due to quality of the documents.Page 1 of 6
CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061
4. Do you given instruction to the aadhaar update centers for which type of quality of document require for aadhaar update. (If yes, please mention date and time, name and designation of the officer.)
5. After rejected the application by UIDAI, what can do applicants. Note: Please refer order of the appeal No. CIC BKOBD A 2020 674203 on 21 07 2022 of point no 8 of the order for section of 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Reply: In response to your online RTI application No. UIDAI/R/T/24/00634 dated 21.11.2024 received by this office on 25.11.2024, the following information is fumished under purview of the RTI Act, 2005: -
1. URN 2715/14767/2XXX dated 14.10.2024 at 15:10:05 due to use of photo copy of Proof of Identity document instead of original.
2. URN 2715/14767/28XXX dated 02.09.2024 at 14:43:21 due to Mismatch of details in Enrolment/update form and Proof of Relationship document
3. URN 2715/14767/2XXX dated 14.10.2024 at 15:05:07 due to Mismatch of details in Enrolment/update form and Proof of Address document, Use of phato copy of Proof of Address document instead of original, Use of photo copy of Proof of Identity document instead of original.
In view of the above, it is intimated to please re-update with valid supporting document as per the process of enrolment and update prescribed by the UIDAL. List of supporting documents is available on UIDAI official website...e. www.uidai.gov.in at link-
https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/List_ofSupporting Document_for_Aadhaar_Enrolment_and Update.pdf Page 2 of 6 CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061 In this regard, kindly note that as per extant UIDAI instructions, the name and DoB/address on Aadhaar should match exactly with the name and DoB/ address indicated in the submitted Pol/PoA/POB/HoF document, failing which the request will be summarily rejected.
However, in case of any specific issue, resident can lodge grievance through Grievance Redressal Mechanism of UIDAI, which is available at UIDAI official website ie. www.uidai.gov.in under tab Contact and Support-Grievance Redressal Mechanism. You can also call on UIDAI Toll Free Helpline No 1947 or email at [email protected] and provide UID/EID/URN details for status/verification/resolution.
It is to inform that the Aadhaar update requests have been rejected due to reasons as under
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.12.2024 observed as under:-
" have also gone through the aforesaid Appeal and the Reply of CPIO, UIDAI, RO, Mumbai dated 05.12.2024 carefully. Reply of CPIO was with reference to the content of your RTI Application and has already been dealt properly. Hence, I find the reply given by CPIO is in order and information provided by the CPIO is under the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
Considering the above facts, the Appeal stands disposed of. "
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 29.12.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conference.Page 3 of 6
CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061 Respondent: Lt. Col. Dhruv Kumar Mishra, Director - participated through video- conference.
5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He averred that he had sought information related to three applications out which two were related to updation of Aadhar Card details and one was for new Aadhar enrolment of his child.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been furnished to the Complainant. He averred that point-wise reply has been provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
8. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
9. Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Page 4 of 6 CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061 Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
10. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
Page 5 of 6CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/658061
11. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
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 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Director & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India (M/o. E. & I.T.-MeitY), R.O.--7th Floor, MTNL Exchange, G.D. Somani Marg, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 (Maharashtra).
2 Jaydeep Rana Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)