Allowed

State of Maharashtra v. Dy. Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2026WP/628/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition by the State of Maharashtra seeking information under the Aadhaar Act regarding an illegal Aadhaar centre. The Court directed the Unique Identification Authority to provide data on specific certificates and roughly 4002 Aadhaar cards to the investigating agency within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to provide information pertaining to specific Aadhaar Udyog Certificates and 4002 Aadhaar cards to the Investigating Agency within four weeks.

State of Maharashtra Vs Dy. Director, Unique… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

DTG 40-Wp-628-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2024

¶5

	State Of Maharashtra	]
	Through Sr. Inspector of Police, DCB, CID,	]
	Unit-6, Chembur, Mumbai	]	… Petitioner
	V/s.
1.	Dy. Director,	]
	Unique Identification Authority Of India,	]
	Mumbai, 7^thFloor, MTNL Telephone	]
	Exchange, G.D. Somani Marg,	]
	Cuff Pared, Mumbai – 400 005	]
2.	Unique Identification Authority Of India,	]
	Government of India (GoI)	]
	Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir,	]
	Gole Market, New Delhi – 110 001	]
3.	Union Of India,	]
	Through Ministry of Electronics and	]
	Information Technology	]
	New Delhi	]	… Respondents

¶6

Smt. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Petitioner-State.

¶7

Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Sanika Kurlekar i/b Mr. Adarsh Vyas for Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Rupali Chaudhari, API, Unit-6, Chembur, Crime Branch, Mumbai, present.

¶9

1/5

¶10

DTG 40-Wp-628-2024.doc

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 27^th August 2026

¶13

JUDGMENT : (Per : A. S. Gadkari, J.) :-

¶14

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-State of Maharashtra through the Senior Inspector of Police, DCB CID Unit 6, Chembur, Mumbai, seek the following relief :-

¶15

“(ii) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to peruse the entire record and proceedings in respect of offence registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai vide C.R. No. 50/2024 and subsequently re-registered as DCB CID CR. No. 05/2024, under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and section 34 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhar Act”) and also communication dated communication dated 30/1/2024 addressed by Dy. Director, Unique Identification Authority of India, Mumbai to Sr. Inspector of Police, DCB, CID, Unit-6, Chembur, Mumbai and this Hon’ble Court may please exercise its power under section 33(1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and direct the Respondent No.1 to give necessary information to the petitioner as per the application / letter dated 19/01/2024 (Exhibit – B to the petition) addressed by Sr. Inspector of Police, DCB, CID, Unit-6, Chembur, Mumbai to Dy. Director, Unique Identification Authority of India, Mumbai.”

¶16

2/5

¶17

DTG 40-Wp-628-2024.doc

¶18

Heard Ms. Shinde, learned APP for the Petitioner-State and Mr. Govilkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents. Perused record including the Affidavit dated 12^th August 2024 filed by Dr. Amar Bhadange, Deputy Director of Respondent No.1 on behalf of the Respondents.

¶19

It is the case of the Petitioner that, they received confidential information that, accused Abidulla and his associate Gulam runs a Aadhaar Centre by name Raza Enterprises. These accused have been preparing bogus documents without obtaining any authentication as mandated and on the basis of such bogus documents, they have been issuing bogus Aadhaar Cards, as per the demands of their customers by accepting illegal consideration.

¶20

3.1) During the course of investigation, it was revealed that, the said accused persons obtained Aadhaar Udyog Certificates, having Reg.No. UID495204, Certificate No. NS-202428 and Kit No. 0271 from Respondent No.1 Department.

¶21

3.2) It was further revealed that, accused Abidulla Mehfuj Ahamad Khan ran the said Aadhaar Centre. Similarly, the accused Aman Krushna Pande also ran the said Aadhaar Centre six to seven months prior to the date of raid i.e. 17^th January 2024.

¶22

3.3) Accordingly, on 17^th January 2023, a trap was laid and the said two persons were arrested. A crime bearing C.R. No. 50 of 2024, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 34 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other

¶23

3/5

¶24

DTG 40-Wp-628-2024.doc

¶25

Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, dated 17^th January 2024, came to be registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. The said crime was thereafter transferred for further investigation to DCB, CID, Unit-6. The Crime Branch re-registered the said crime as C.R. No. 5 of 2024 and started further investigation.

¶26

The Investigating Agency, therefore, now wants the documents submitted by the said two accused persons for procuring the said Aadhaar Udyog Certificate and the permission for running said Aadhaar Centre.

¶27

Dr. Amar Bhadange, Deputy Director of Respondent No.1 has filed a detailed Affidavit. In para No.19 of the Affidavit, it is stated that, the said accused persons used specific Aadhaar Kits numbers to issue approximately 690 Aadhaar Cards up to 19^th January 2024 and a total of 4002 Aadhaar Cards were either freshly issued or updated.

¶28

5.1) It is stated that, in view of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Retd. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1, the Respondent No.1 are not be permitted to share the information with the Investigating Agency without hearing the concerned persons.

¶29

5.2) Further, in para No. 22 thereof, the concerned Authority has requested this Court to pass appropriate directions in accordance with the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and

¶30

4/5

¶31

DTG 40-Wp-628-2024.doc

¶32

Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

¶33

As noted above, the Crime Branch is investigating a serious offence wherein it alleged that, about 4002 Aadhaar Cards are either illegally issued or updated in the system of Respondent No.1. The Investigating Agency therefore needs the entire data of all these Aadhaar Cards from Respondent No.1, to resolve crime.

¶34

According to us, the allegations against the said two accused persons in either running an illegal Aadhaar Centre or legally running an Aadhaar Centre which permission was procured on the basis of bogus or ingenuine or fraudulent documents needs to be thoroughly investigated.

¶35

In view of the above, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, we deem it fit to allow the Petition in terms of prayer clause (ii). 9) Respondent No.1 is directed to provide all the necessary and relevant information pertaining to the said Aadhaar Udyog Certificates, having Reg.No. UID-495204, Certificate No. NS-202428 and the information pertaining to the said 4002 number of Aadhaar Cards more specifically mentioned in para No. 19 of Affidavit dated 12^th August 2024, to the Investigating Agency within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present Judgment on the official website of the High Court of Bombay. 10) Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶36

Digitally signed by DNYANESHWAR DNYANESHWAR TULSHIRAM TULSHIRAM GHUMNAR GHUMNAR Date: 2026.09.02 19:03:30 +0530

¶37

5/5

State of Maharashtra v. Dy. Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Dy. Director, Unique Identification Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases