Central Information Commission
Karanveer Singh vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 11 March, 2026
CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186
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/MOEIT/A/2025/101186
Karanveer Singh ... 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 : 11.09.2024 FA : 17.10.2024 SA : 06.01.2025
CPIO : 08.10.2024 FAO : 01.11.2024 Hearing : 03.03.2026
Date of Decision: 03.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. यह िक ाथ ारा दो बार हािदक पु अ नी कुमतार िनवासी मकान नंबर 58 डीम िसटी कंकर खेडा मेरठ िजला मेरठ (उ र दे श) के िलए दो बार आधार काड बनवाने के िलए आवेदन िकये िक ु पोटल पर बार-बार यह िलखा आता है िक यह पूव मे आपका आधार काड बन चुका है िजसकी आवेदन ितिलिप संल है ।Page 1 of 6
CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186
2. यह िक ाथ ारा हािदक का आधार काड बनवाने हे तु कोई इससे पहले कोई अ वेदन नहीं आवेदन नहीं िकया गया है। ाथ को यह सूचना चािहए िक िकस के ारा हािदक का आधार काड बनाया गया उसका नाम व पता व मोबाइल नंबर दे ने की कृपा करे ।
3. यह िक ाथ को हािदक का आधार काड उपल कराय जान की कृपा करे ।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"िबंदु-1 से 3- 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।"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.01.2025.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Akashdeep, Director- participated in the hearing through audio- conference.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant relates to personal information of third-party and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. A written Page 2 of 6 CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186 submission dated 17.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. Th relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..In the above cited RTI application, the applicant had requested information regarding Aadhaar of another Aadhaar holder.
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.
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: -
Page 3 of 6CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186
(i) CIC Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/158034/02922 dated 18.02.2020 filed by Shri Chakradhar "In the case mentioned at (i), 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 u/s 8(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 granting 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.
6. The above submission, made by the CPIO UIDAI, RO Lucknow may kindly be considered and taken on records and the second appeal may please be disposed of in favor of the CPIO..."
Decision:
Page 4 of 6CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant. It is noted that section of 28(5) & 29 (2) of Aadhaar Act, 2016, restrict the sharing of information collected or created and stored in Central Identities Data Repository under the said Act except as per the provisions of the Aadhaar Act or Regulations framed there under. Further 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. In the given circumstances, since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate authority through proper channel. The appeal 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. Electronics & I.T.), Regional Office, TC-46-V, 3rd Floor, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 (Uttar Pradesh)` Page 5 of 6 CIC/MOEIT/A/2025/101186 2 Karanveer Singh Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)