Suresh Chand Meena vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 10 September, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Suresh Chand Meena vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 10 September, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/638600

Shri Suresh Chand Meena                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Unique Identification Authority of                     ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India(UIDAI)

Date of Hearing                          :   04.09.2025
Date of Decision                         :   04.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           25.07.2024
PIO replied on                    :           07.08.2024
First Appeal filed on             :           14.08.2024
First Appellate Order on          :           16.08.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :           Nil

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-

"Aadhar Card Number - 587045601752 While making my Aadhar Card No. 587045601752, 10 finger and thumb impressions were taken on biometric. Please print them out and give me a copy."

The CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) vide letter dated 07.08.2024 replied as under:-

"Regarding sharing/matching of biometrics the following sections of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidiaries Benefits and Services) Act 2016 as amended by the Aadhaar (and Other Laws) Amendment Act 2019 and other relevant rules and regulations thereto have unambiguously restricted the sharing of core biometrics under any circumstances. Section-29: Restriction on sharing information:-

(1) No core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be-

(a) Shared with anyone for any reason whatsoever, or

(b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

4. It is pertinent to note that "core biometric information" has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Aadhaar Act to mean finger print, iris scan or such other Page 1 of 2 biological attribute of an individual as may be specified by Regulations. Therefore, there is a clear prohibition under the law against sharing or using core biometrics for any reason whatsoever.

5. In view of aforementioned position, this office cannot share/match biometric information of the residents."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2024. The FAA, UIDAI vide order dated 16.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 01.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO, UIDAI reiterating the abovementioned response sent to the Appellant.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Kumar Ujjwal- CPIO, UIDAI was present during hearing.

The Appellant has not appeared for the hearing, while the Respondent placed reliance on the PIO's reply and the written submission dated 01.09.2025 mentioned hereinabove, stating that response in terms of the provisions of the law has been duly furnished to the Appellant.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the case reveals that the appropriate response in keeping with the provisions of the law has been duly provided to the Appellant. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 01.09.2025, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter.

Since the response of the PIO is found legally appropriate and the Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case at hand, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission