Central Information Commission
Prahlad Kumar vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UIDAI/C/2024/635104.
Shri Prahlad Kumar ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Unique Identification Authority of India ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025
Date of Decision : 20.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.06.2024
PIO replied on : 08.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 19.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 07.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"So i want to know the following information regarding updating of DOB of my father in his Aadhar card under RTI ACT 2005
1. Please inform me about the documents required to update DOB in aadhar card.
2. Please inform me that 10th certificate having DO8 printed is accepted or not in updating DOB in aadhar card.
3. Please inform me about the status of enrolment no. 0651/11348/07594 dated 16/03/2024, Time- 14:48:18.
4. Please inform me that if this enrolment no. is not available in aadhar database then CSC Centre, Reorha will return my money or not
5. Please inform me about any assistance is available to senior citizen for updating of aadhar or not.
6. Please inform me the next steps in this case to update the DOB of my father in Aadhar card"
The CPIO vide letter dated 08.07.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: 1. For the same please visit below mentioned link:
https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/List_of_supporting_Document_for_Aadhaa r_Enrolment and_Update.pdf Page 1 of 4
2. For the first time update in DOB, 10th Mark sheet will be considered, if DOB is mentioned in mark sheet with candidate picture.
3. Your mentioned EID cant be processed due to technical reason it is requested please re enroll at an authorized Enrollment center. List of Enrollment centres are available on official website www. UIDAI.gov.in
4. NO
5. Home enrollment facility, especially for senior citizens/ bedridden/ infirm/ persons with disabilities (Divyangjan) etc. Based on merit, UIDAI, Regional offices have been attending to such requests for home enrolment through the Registrars. However, Additional cost may be bear by the applicant (OM attached) for more clarification.
6. You are requested to please visit any Aadhaar Enrollment center and update your DOB with Valid supporting documents. For list of Supporting documents you can also visit below mentioned link:
https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/List_of_supporting_Document_for_Aadhaa r_Enrolment_and_Update.pdf"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2024 raising a fresh set of grievances as under:
1) Please inform me the process to complain against these Aadhar enrolment centre for their unprofessionalism and for my father mental harassment.
2) Please send me the document from where this DOB- 01/01/1944 came at the time of enrolment of my father Aadhar enrolment.
3) My father already paid service charge for DOB update having enrolment no. 0651/11348/07594 dated 16/03/2024 me-14:48:18, As per PIO reply no. 03 , My EID cannot be processed due to any technical reason so please share the policy as per this case when i want to update again my father DOB , My father will pay service charge or UIDAI The FAA vide order dated 07.08.2024 held as under:-
"Reply:- 1. The information sought does not pertain to the original RTI application dated: 15.06.2024. However, format for lodging complaint is enclosed.
2. The information sought does not pertain to the original RTI application dated:
15.06.2024.
3. At the time of updation of DOB vide EID 0651/11348/07594 dated 16/03/2024 time-14:48:18, supporting document is missing, therefore, mentioned EID is not processed. However, to resolve your grievance it is suggested to re-enroll with valid documents. Direct link for List of Acceptable Documents for Enrolment and Update has also been furnished below:
https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/List_of_Supporting_Document_for_Aadha ar_Enrolment_and_Update.pdf Charges for demographic updation: Rs. 50/-"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 13.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, UIDAI reiterating the above facts, concluding the submission with the following words:
"..Keeping in view of the above facts and provisions, it is submitted that the said matter has already been dealt properly under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and Aadhaar Act (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Page 2 of 4 Services), 2015(as amended from time to time) by UIDAl, RO, Ranchi, with a suggestion to re-enrol with valid documents. Direct link for list of Acceptable Documents for Enrolment and Update has also been furnished below : https://uidai.gov.inlimages/commdoc/List_of_documents_for_Aahaar_Enrolment _and_Update.pdf.
Charges for demographic updation is : Rs. 50/-"
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar - CPIO/Director, UIDAI, RO Ranchi present during hearing The Complainant was aggrieved with the reply sent by the PIO since his fresh grievances as specified in his First Appeal had not been addressed by the Respondent. The Respondent present during hearing contended that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Complainant, in response to his queries raised in the RTI application. However, since the Complainant raised a set of fresh grievances in his First Appeal, the same could not be addressed as noted in the FAA's order dated 07.08.2024.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case it is noted it is not disputed that the Respondent furnished information from available records, in response to the queries raised by the Complainant in the RTI application. In so far as the set of grievances raised by him in the First Appeal are concerned, the FAA has appropriately handled them in the FAA's order. Thus no legal infirmity is found in the responses sent by the Respondent. The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent has nowhere denied or attempted to deliberately or wilfully conceal information in this case. The scope of adjudication under Section 18 of the RTI Act has been laid down clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"... 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). Under clauses
(a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act [Section 18(1)(b)] or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act [Section 18(1)(e)] or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within time limits specified under the Act [Section 18(1)(c). We are not concerned with provision of Section 18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act.
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 Page 3 of 4 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."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that response sent by the Respondent is legally appropriate and no instance of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case.
The case is disposed of as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)