Central Information Commission
Alimuddeen vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 8 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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2024/123191.
Shri. ALIMUDDEEN. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Unique Identification Authority of India.
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025
Date of Decision : 05.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.01.2024
PIO replied on : 29.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 05.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 12.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"In your jurisdiction, kindly provide the complete certified copy of Adhar Enrolment No. 0013/12008/8521 dated 08-09-2023 (Appointment No. 1694160909768 & Subcase Id: S20297588370002024012309134601) of aadhar related complete file of applicant's wife Mrs. Rooxana Auckburally W/o Alimuddeen, 1-A, Salim Manzil, Opp. ESI Hospital, Hatwara Road, Jaipur-302006 like as complete form with verification failure file/letter/Notesheet etc. Copy of enrolment receipt, marriage certificate and verification failure email are enclosed herewith for your help."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 29.02.2024 replied as under:-
"1. सूचना के अनिकार अनिननयम 2005 के अन्द्तगगत आपका आवेिन संख्या शून्द्य दिनांक 25.01.2024 जोदक यूआईडीएआई मुख्यालय के पत्र संख्या HQ-14023(11)/2/2024-COORD-HQ (Camp E13547) दिनांक 01.02.2024 िारा इस कायागलय में दिनांक 06.02.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ है, के सन्द्िर्ग में जानकारी ननम्ननलनित हैं:
आिार (नवत्तीय और अन्द्य सनससडी, लार् और सेवाओं के लनित नवतरण) अनिननयम, 2016 दक िारा 28(5) के अनुसार "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, and save as otherwise provided in the Act, the Authority or any of its officers or other employees or any agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository shall not, whether during his service or thereafter, Page 1 reveal any information stored in the 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".
चूंदक मााँगी गयी जानकारी CIDR का एक र्ाग है अतः दकसी के साथ सांझा नहीं की जा सकती है। सूचना का अनिकार अनिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) (j) के अनुसार दकसी ननवेिक को तीसरी पार्टी या दकसी अन्द्य ननवासी से संबंनित व्यनिगत सूचना को नहीं दिया जा सकता है। उपरोि संिर्र्गत जानकारी प्रानिकरण की वेबसाइर्ट ललंक: https://uidai.gov.in/about-uidai/right-to- information.html पर र्ी उपलसि है।
आिार संख्याओं की जनसांनख्यकीय नववरण / िस्तावेज़ के नलए कृ पया आिार अनिननयम 2016 के ननस्र प्राविानों का संिर्ग लें-
(1) That the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act) and amendment made vide the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 restricts the sharing of information, collected or created under the said Act except as per the provisions of the Aadhaar Act or the Regulations framed there under. (II) That the only exception on the restriction on sharing of inforniation is provided under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act and amended thereto. As per Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as amended by the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act-2019 (No. 14 of 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 and opportunity of hearing be provided to both UIDAI and the concerned Aadhaar Number holder.
(iii) That the Supreme Court vide its Judgement dated 26/09/2018 in WP (C) 494 of 2012 had clarified that an individual, whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. On receipt of such an order, in that eventuality, the individual shall have right to challenge such an order passed by approaching the higher Court. During the hearing before the concerned Court, the said individual can always object to the disclosure of information on accepted grounds in law, including Article 20(3) of the Constitution or the privacy rights etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 12.04.2024 replied as under:-
"2 प्राथी िारा पूवग में के न्द्रीय जनसूचना अनिकारी से मााँगी गई सूचना एवं प्रानिकरण के के न्द्रीय जनसूचना अनिकारी िारा उन्द्हें दिए गए जवाब के अवलोकन से यह प्रतीत होता है दक, के न्द्रीय जनसूचना अनिकारी िारा दिया गया जवाब आर. र्टी. आई. अनिननयम, 2005 के ननयमों के अनुरूप है। अतः प्रथम अपीलीय अनिकारी इस ननष्कर्ग पर पहुंचे है दक सीपीआईओ िारा दिया गया उत्तर र्ार र्टी. आई. अनिननयम, 2005 के प्राविानों के अनुसार राही है। अतएव उि के आलोक में, में प्रश्नगत प्रथम अपील के आवेिन को नबना दकसी ननिेश के िाररज करता हाँ एवं तिानुसार इस अपील को ननस्ताररत करता हाँ।"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further a written submission dated 29.07.2025 has been received from the respondents, stating, "The resident was seeking demographic information in respect of Enrolment No. 0013/12008/8521 dated 08-09-2023 of his wife Mrs. Rooxana Auckburally. The said RTI was disposed off and applicant was informed that Page 2 requested information is a part of CIDR and therefore it cannot be shared as per section 28 & 29 of Aadhaar Act, 2006"
Etc....
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present and represented by Adv. Jitender Kumar Sharma Respondent: Mr. Kumar Ujwall CPIO/Director participated in the hearing. The appellant submits that information sought relates to Aadhar verification of his wife and same is not exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.He further submits that the information sought has been rejected under the garb of personal information of third party without following procedure mentioned under section 11. The respondent reiterates that the Adhaar packet of the Appelant's wife has been rejected in field verification, he further stated that the information sought has been rejected under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover the information cannot be shared under section 28 and 29 of the Aadhar Act of 2006.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the case records and the submission made during hearing it is observed that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, further no larger public interest has been invoked by him . In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of Page 3 "personal information" which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुि) Authenticated true copy (अनर्प्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचर्टकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)