- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3380 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MONISHA RAJ T G D/O LATE P GANGARAJU, W/O J SIDDAYOGEESHA, AGED 33 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 4/320, BEHIND HEALTH QUATRES, K.H.B.COLONY GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU DIST - 572216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BY ITS SECRETARY, ELECTRONICS NIKETAN, 6, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 NEW DELHI - 110 003 REPRESENTED BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF AKRNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI) 3RD FLOOR, SOUTH WING, KHANIJA BHAWAN, 49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560061 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR. 3. SHYLA W/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SREE YADIYURU SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA, 31 WARD, E CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD, NRUPATHUNGA EXTN., TUMAKURU - 572102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KUMAR M N., CGC FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SURESH I MUGALAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE REPLY/RESPONSE DATED 08.12.2023 F.NO.R.11011/300/2022-23/ROB/PS/VOL-20/1202 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE R2 TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT PERTAINING TO R3 DATED 6.11.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner seeks directions to the second respondent to furnish certain authentication records pertaining to the third respondent while calling in question the first respondent's Communication dated 08.12.2023 issued by the second respondent. The second respondent has caused this Communication refusing authentication records in effect referring to Section 33 (1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 [for short, 'the Adhaar Act']. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 2. The petitioner has sought for the following authenticated records: 1) Aadhaar Enrollment Slip and Aadhaar Card in EID: 2017/60020/29851 dated 04.07.2013 with Mobile No.8747921893 together and address in No. Hanike, Belur, Hassan District Karnataka with Pin code 573115 and Aadhaar Number 7251 1527 6937. 2) Aadhaar Enrollment Slip and Aadhaar card New EID: 1190/98014/33149 date:26.05.2015 with Address Yediyuru Siddalingeshwara Nilaya 1st main E Cross, Shettihalli Main Road, Nrupatunga Extension, Tumakuru with same Aadhaar Number 7251 1527 6937. 3. It remains undisputed that the petitioner is prosecuting proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1956 in P & SC No.5/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru for issuance of a Succession Certificate. The petitioner asserts that his father, Sri. P. Gangaraju, has died leaving behind his wife and brother, who are now deceased, but the third respondent has staked a wrong claim setting up a Testament and Will. The petitioner disputes the third - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 respondent's contention that she is married to the petitioner's father. 4. Sri Sunil Kumar Patel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Suresh I Mugalakki, the learned counsel for the third respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition. The learned counsels propose to elaborate on the circumstances to justify the assertion by their respective clients on whether the third respondent was indeed married to Sri. P. Gangaraju or not, but the question for consideration in this petition is whether this Court can quash Annexure-B directing the second respondent to furnish authentication records as afore stated. 5. Sri Kumar M.N., the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, points out Section 33 of the Adhaar Act, and the learned counsel submits that unless there is an order by a Court presided over by a Judge not inferior to that of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 Judge of a High Court: neither identity information nor authentication records can be furnished and that the concerned Court must also pass such orders only after giving an opportunity to the concerned. 6. Sri Sunil Kumar Patel submits that the petitioner is not seeking identity information but is only seeking authentication records and that these would be material for the pending proceedings. Sri.Suresh I. Mugalakki contends that the enrollment under the Act is for certain subsidies, benefits and services extended from the public exchequer and that the details furnished at the time of such enrollment cannot be used in a private litigation. 7. Section 33 of the Adhaar Act read as under: Disclosure of information in certain cases. - (1) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub- section (5) of section 28 or sub-section (2) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court: Provided that no order by the court under this sub-section shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the concerned Aadhaar number holder. [Provided further that the core biometric information shall not be disclosed under this sub-section.] (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub- section (5) of section 28 and clause (b) of sub- section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction of an officer not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government: Provided that every direction issued under this sub-section, shall be reviewed by an Oversight Committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, before it takes effect: Provided further that any direction issued under this subsection shall be valid for a period of three months from the date of its issue, which may be extended for a further period of three months after the review by the Oversight Committee. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 8. The relevant provisions for the present purposes will be sub-section (1) and the proviso. This Court must observe that indeed the enrollment is for a specific purpose, but nothing in the Adhaar Act prohibits the authentication records being made over when such a record could be relevant for an effective adjudication in a private dispute such as in the present case. In fact, these provisions of the Act permit disclosure of authentication records when there are orders by this Court. The second respondent, unless there are orders by a competent Court, could not have given the authentication records, and as such, no exception can be taken with the Communication. 9. The petitioner proposes to assert that contrary to the declaration in the authentication records, the third respondent has pleaded in P & SC No.5/2018 that she was married to Sri P. Gangaraju on 07.06.2015 and that this was despite the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35017 WP No. 3380 of 2024 subsistence of a marriage. Be these as they are, which will be examined in the proceedings, for the present purposes this Court does not find a prohibition against direction to the second respondent to furnish authentication records and as such, the petition is allowed directing the second respondent, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, to furnish authentication records pertaining to the third respondent. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Court's order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr