Bombay High Court orders fresh Aadhaar enrollment for twins stuck in biometric-mismatch limbo, issues eight directions to UIDAI

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has directed UIDAI to process fresh Aadhaar enrollment for two Pune brothers stranded by a years-long biometric mismatch, and laid down eight systemic directions to prevent genuine residents from being shunted between offices without a written, time-bound remedy.

The Bombay High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India to process a fresh Aadhaar enrollment for two twin brothers from Pune who had been moved between cancellation, update and suspension processes for nearly three years without a written, time-bound resolution. A division bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hiten S. Venegavkar made the rule absolute on 6 May 2026 and, going beyond the file before it, issued eight general directions to UIDAI on how to handle genuine residents facing biometric mismatch.

The petition was filed by Rohit Bandu Nikalje and Rahul Bandu Nikalje, who are 19, residents of Vikas Nagar in Pune, and pursuing higher education. Their Aadhaar numbers had been issued in 2012 when they were minors. When they returned to UIDAI in 2022 for the mandatory biometric update prescribed under the Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2016, the system flagged a biometric mismatch — apparently because their fingerprints had been interchanged or anomalously captured at the original enrollment. What followed was an administrative cycle that the bench eventually described as “unsatisfactory”.

The brothers were first told their update was rejected for biometric mismatch. They were then asked to apply for cancellation of the existing Aadhaar numbers and to re-enroll. After they submitted consent forms for cancellation in April 2024, they were told a month later that the cancellation route had been revoked by a new circular and that they would have to update the existing numbers instead. Over the next several months, they visited the UIDAI Regional Office at Mumbai four times. Eventually they were informed that the Aadhaar numbers had been suspended or cancelled and that fresh enrollment would be required.

Statute, regulation and what the bench actually decided

Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Harshada Shirsath, argued that there was no allegation of fraud, impersonation or suppression, that the original enrollment error was attributable to UIDAI rather than to two minors, and that the brothers could not be expected to function in higher education and ordinary civic life without a valid Aadhaar. Counsel for UIDAI, Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha, did not dispute that fresh enrollment was open to the petitioners, but maintained that the integrity of the Central Identities Data Repository ruled out a mechanical update once biometric mismatch had been detected.

Justice Venegavkar, writing for the bench, noted that the controversy was narrow. The petitioners were not asking the Court to disregard biometric safeguards; UIDAI was not denying that they could apply afresh. The grievance was that the authority had moved them from one administrative process to another without a final outcome. The bench worked through the statutory architecture. Section 23 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 empowers UIDAI to administer enrollment, authentication and issuance. Section 31 contemplates alteration of biometric information. Regulation 28 of the 2016 Enrollment and Update Regulations recognises deactivation for mixed or anomalous biometrics, while Regulation 31 contemplates re-enrollment where Aadhaar numbers are omitted, and updation where they are deactivated. The statutory scheme, the bench held, “does not support an indefinite administrative limbo”.

The bench drew the constitutional thread through three Supreme Court authorities. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1 upheld the Aadhaar framework but conditioned it on dignity, privacy, proportionality and exclusion safeguards; the relevant ratio for this case, Justice Venegavkar wrote, is that Aadhaar must operate in a manner that is procedurally fair and constitutionally reasonable. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 59 recognises the State's interest in identity integrity, but the same principle requires a lawful route for genuine persons to cure defects. Comptroller and Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679 confirms that a High Court may issue mandamus where a public authority has failed to exercise discretion or has exercised it in a manner that frustrates the statute. UIDAI, the bench wrote, was being directed not to bypass verification but to exercise its statutory function in a proper, time-bound and accountable manner.

A narrow order, and a wider one

On the facts, the bench held that the petitioners could not be left without a remedy merely because a biometric anomaly had occurred in the Aadhaar system, particularly where no fraud or impersonation was alleged against them. The Court invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia — that the law does not compel the impossible — to underscore that two young residents could not be expected to cure an administrative biometric mismatch except through UIDAI's own technological and procedural mechanism, and could not be asked to produce documents beyond what the statute and regulations require.

The bench then issued specific directions for the brothers. They are to appear at the UIDAI Regional Office at Mumbai or a designated Aadhaar Seva Kendra within fifteen days, submit fresh applications with fresh biometric capture and the prescribed supporting documents, and receive proper acknowledgment. The authorities are not to reject the applications on the sole ground that the earlier Aadhaar numbers had been suspended, deactivated, omitted or cancelled for biometric mismatch. Processing must follow the Aadhaar Act and the 2016 Regulations and conclude within four weeks. If the applications are complete and no independent legal impediment is found, fresh Aadhaar numbers and cards are to be issued within that period; if for any legally sustainable reason they cannot be processed, a reasoned written order must be communicated within the same window.

Eight directions for the next case like this one

What sets the order apart is the second half. The bench observed that it had been increasingly seeing cases where citizens — students, senior citizens, labourers, persons from rural areas and economically weaker sections — were forced to approach constitutional courts over biometric mismatch, failed updation, deactivation, suspension, omission or cancellation. The court read Article 21 as requiring that administrative procedures affecting civic identity operate fairly, transparently and reasonably. To reduce avoidable hardship, the bench laid down eight directions to the Regional Officer and to UIDAI itself.

First, whenever a citizen approaches with such a grievance, the authority must inform the citizen in writing or through officially recognised electronic communication about the precise status of the Aadhaar record and the legally permissible remedial procedure under the Aadhaar Act and the 2016 Regulations. Second, an appropriate facilitation mechanism must be maintained at Regional Offices and Aadhaar Seva Kendras for biometric-mismatch and related cases. Third, where Aadhaar was first enrolled in minority and mismatch is later noticed at the mandatory updation age, reasonable opportunity for fresh biometric capture and rectification must be given.

Fourth, genuine applicants are not to be compelled to make repeated visits without being informed of the status of their applications or the procedure for redressal. Fifth, where the statutory framework permits fresh enrollment, the authorities must facilitate it and shall not reject the request merely because an earlier Aadhaar number stood suspended, deactivated, omitted or cancelled for biometric mismatch, unless fraud, impersonation or duplication is detected. Sixth, requests for biometric correction, updation, reactivation or fresh enrollment must be processed expeditiously and preferably within four weeks of submission. Seventh, no documents are to be insisted upon beyond what the Aadhaar Act, the Regulations and officially notified UIDAI requirements prescribe. Eighth, while maintaining the integrity and security of the Aadhaar database, the authority must adopt a fair, humane and citizen-centric approach when dealing with students, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, economically weaker sections and other genuine residents.

The bench was careful to clarify that it had not expressed any opinion on the technical correctness of the original mismatch report. The order is confined to ensuring that the petitioners are not left without a remedy and that the statutory authority acts in a fair, transparent and time-bound manner.

Order

The Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There is no order as to costs. The petitioners have fifteen days to appear before UIDAI; UIDAI has four weeks from the date of submission to take a final, written decision.