AP High Court Orders Aadhaar Details Released to Police in Land Fraud Probe After RTI Refusal

A Division Bench at Amaravati directed UIDAI to release Aadhaar information to police investigating an impersonation and forged land-sale case in Visakhapatnam, overturning a single-judge dismissal.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India and a related respondent to release Aadhaar card details to the police for the purposes of investigating a criminal case involving alleged identity fraud and forged land sales in Visakhapatnam. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, set aside a single-judge order that had declined to issue such a direction. The bench held that Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 does not create an absolute bar on disclosure — it merely requires a court order from a court not inferior to a High Court before such information can be released. That condition, the bench found, was now satisfied.

The Fraud Alleged and the Criminal Case

Shri Sitaramanjaneyulu Elaprolu claims ownership of Ac.1-99.5 cents of land in Survey Nos. 156/1 and 157/11 of Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He came to know that a person arrayed as respondent No. 5 in the writ petition had impersonated him by creating an Aadhaar card in his name and then fraudulently executed two registered sale deeds — Document No. 407 of 2021 for Ac.1.85 cents and Document No. 4077 of 2021 for Ac.14.50 cents — in favour of respondent No. 4.

On discovering this, the appellant filed a First Information Report, registered as Crime No. 430 of 2021 before the Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He also filed O.S. No. 174 of 2021 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were null and void. An interim injunction was granted in that suit restraining the named parties from interfering with his possession.

Separately, the District Registrar and Inspector of Registration Offices in Visakhapatnam took cognizance of a complaint filed by the appellant's son and cancelled the two sale deeds on 2 November 2021. That cancellation order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of W.P. No. 26359 of 2023.

The RTI Refusal and the Approach to the Commissioner of Police

While pursuing Crime No. 430 of 2021, the appellant sought details of the Aadhaar card — including biometric information — from the UIDAI under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The UIDAI rejected this request by proceedings dated 4 January 2024, citing the bar under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The appellant then approached the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, seeking the same information through the investigating machinery. Neither the Investigating Officer nor the Commissioner moved to obtain the Aadhaar data. Left without recourse through the police, the appellant filed W.P. No. 2417 of 2025 before the High Court, seeking a declaration that the rejection order passed by respondent No. 3 on 7 October 2024 was illegal and arbitrary, and a direction to furnish the Aadhaar information used by the alleged impersonator to execute the sale deeds.

The Single Judge's Dismissal

A learned single judge of the High Court dismissed W.P. No. 2417 of 2025 by order dated 22 December 2025. The single judge reasoned that Aadhaar information can be disclosed only under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and only when an order from a court not inferior to a High Court — or, in national security matters, an order from a Joint Secretary — is in place. Since no application had been filed by the Commissioner of Police seeking such information, the single judge held that the court could not direct respondent No. 3 to furnish it.

The appellant challenged this dismissal by way of Writ Appeal No. 252 of 2026 before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act

Before the Division Bench, counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Jhansi Guduru, argued that the entire investigation into the fraudulent execution of the sale deeds would fail without the Aadhaar information. She contended that the offence of forgery attributed to respondent No. 5 was serious, and that the perpetrators of such offences should not escape prosecution on the ground of protecting their right to privacy.

The bench examined Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, which governs the conditions under which Aadhaar identity information may be disclosed. The bench found that the provision does not impose an absolute bar. Rather, it permits disclosure subject to necessary safeguards, and restricts release to situations where an order of a court not inferior to a High Court has been obtained. The purpose of that restriction, the bench observed, is to ensure that safeguards are in place before sensitive biometric data is shared.

The bench then addressed the privacy dimension directly. It held that a person alleged to have committed forgery for personal gain cannot be permitted to escape investigation on the ground of privacy protection. The bench went further: the Aadhaar card in question was officially said to have been issued in the name of the appellant himself. In those circumstances, the bench reasoned, the question of the alleged impersonator's privacy may not even arise.

On a consideration of these facts, the bench concluded that the information should be released to the police respondents for the purposes of proceeding with the investigation in Crime No. 430 of 2021. The Division Bench's own order, it held, satisfied the statutory requirement of a court order from a court not inferior to a High Court under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

Directions and Outcome

The Division Bench set aside the single-judge order dated 22 December 2025 in W.P. No. 2417 of 2025 and disposed of the writ appeal with the following directions:

Respondents 2 and 3 were directed to release the Aadhaar information available with them to respondent No. 6 — the information to be restricted to what is permissible under the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. Upon receiving that information, respondent No. 6 was permitted to share it with respondent No. 7 for the purposes of investigating Crime No. 430 of 2021.

Respondents 2 and 3 were given three weeks from the date of receipt of the order to release the information. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed. No order as to costs was made.