Privacy Cannot Conceal Illegality”: Bombay High Court Clears Path for Disclosure of Aadhaar Details of Foreign National Without Valid Visa

Right to Privacy Under Article 21 Does Not Protect Fraudulent Claims of Residency - In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of privacy rights and national security, the Bombay High Court at Goa has permitted the disclosure of Aadhaar enrolment data of a foreign national involved in serious criminal and immigration offences, holding that such information, when obtained under suspicious and potentially unlawful circumstances, cannot be shielded by the right to privacy.

Justice Valmiki Menezes observed:

“The Respondent No.3 admittedly had no passport or valid visa at the time the Aadhaar card was issued or his demographic information was collected. In the absence of a document that allowed him residence in India… the grant of the application to enable the investigating authorities to investigate… would attain great relevance.”

The foreign national, an Israeli citizen, was already facing multiple convictions and pending trials for offences under the NDPS Act, Foreigners Act, and IPC, and had been extradited from Peru on a Red Corner Notice. Yet, in 2021, he secured an Aadhaar card despite lacking even the most basic prerequisites — a valid passport or residence visa.

The Court emphasized:

“The word ‘resident’ in Section 3 of the Aadhaar Act must be read in the context of lawful residence… a foreigner would be required to have a visa or travel document issued by the Government of India to enable him to reside in India.”

The State of Goa, through the Anjuna Police Station, had approached the Court under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, seeking disclosure of enrolment documents, including Form 1, demographic records, and the name of the Enrolment Agency. UIDAI initially refused to disclose the documents, citing privacy obligations under the Act. Respondent No.3 opposed the application, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, claiming that such disclosure would breach his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

The Court rejected this contention with sharp clarity:

“Though a case has been made out… considering the argument raised by Respondent No.3, claiming that his fundamental right to privacy would be breached… I have perused the Form 1… The POI, POA, and POB have all been certified by the same Gazetted Officer and are not based upon any other document belonging to the Respondent… Disclosure… would therefore not result in disclosing any personal document or personal information.”

In what will likely be seen as a precedent-setting interpretation of Section 33, the Court ruled that judicial oversight is not a mere formality, but a constitutional safeguard — and when exercised properly, privacy must give way to legitimate investigation.

“The Aadhaar card, a foundational document, appears to have been secured in circumvention of statutory eligibility. Investigating such misuse falls well within the compelling State interest exception recognised in constitutional privacy jurisprudence.”

Rejecting the argument that privacy could be invoked as a shield against inquiries into such misuse, the Court ruled:

“The Respondent No.3, having no valid residence visa or even a valid passport, as on the date he applied for the Aadhaar card, prima facie, may not have been entitled to apply for an Aadhaar card… The application must be allowed as the content of the demographic information would have a direct bearing on the investigation.”

Concluding the matter, the Court directed the UIDAI to provide all documents sought, stating:

“Rule is made absolute. The Unique Identification Authority of India shall provide to the Applicant the demographic information of Respondent No.3… and the details of the Enrolment Agency authorized by it… within two weeks.”

This judgment underscores a crucial legal point — privacy is a right, not a refuge for illegality. When foundational identity documents are allegedly obtained through false pretences, especially by those without lawful residence, the law must empower the State to investigate. The ruling not only reaffirms that the Aadhaar Act allows judicial disclosure under Section 33(1), but also reiterates that Article 21 protections are not meant to immunize criminal conduct or obstruct due process.

In the evolving framework of digital identity, immigration regulation, and data protection, this case stands as a powerful reminder that rights must operate within the bounds of legality and national interest.

Date of Decision: 23 September 2025