In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court recently directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to disclose the Aadhaar card details of a human trafficking victim to assist the police in locating the individual. The case, Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah vs The State of Jharkhand & Another, highlights the court’s authority under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, to order the disclosure of identity information or authentication records, provided the UIDAI and the Aadhaar cardholder are given an opportunity to be heard.
However, the bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava noted that in this instance, the cardholder—a missing victim—could not be heard. The court emphasized that statutory provisions should not hinder substantive justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals.
“In such circumstances, the statutory provision cannot be interpreted to act against the interests of the victim. The principle of delivering substantive justice must prevail,” the court observed in its February 24 order.
The court further reasoned that providing the Aadhaar details to the investigating agency could increase the chances of locating the victim, who has been missing since 2014. “To ensure substantive justice for the parents and the victim, who has been untraceable for over a decade, this court finds it necessary to exercise its powers under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act,” the bench stated.
Earlier, on February 19, 2024, the court had denied bail to the accused, citing the failure to trace the trafficked minor victims. The case was kept pending after the police reported that all efforts to locate the victims had been unsuccessful, prompting a request for the Aadhaar details of one of the victims. The UIDAI had clarified that such details could only be disclosed under the High Court’s direction.
Initially, the court had suggested that the UIDAI could disclose the information under Section 33(2) of the Aadhaar Act, which allows disclosure in the interest of national security. The court had noted on February 11 that human trafficking, particularly of minors, could be linked to national security concerns, as trafficked children might be exploited in activities threatening national security, potentially falling under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
However, in its latest order, the court deemed the process under Section 33(2) to be time-consuming and opted to issue the directive itself under Section 33(1).
Representation:
- Advocates Gautam Kumar, Abhinav Raj, and Ashutosh Kumar Sinha appeared for the appellants.
- Advocates Lily Sahay, Nehala Sharmin, and Ruby Pandey represented the prosecution.
- Deputy Solicitor General of India Prashant Pallav, along with advocate Shivani Jaluka, represented the UIDAI.
- Advocates Pratyush Lala and Deepak Sahu appeared for other respondents.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing statutory provisions with the imperative to deliver justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals and serious crimes like human trafficking.