Disposed

Saniya Sultana v. The Unique Identification Authority of India (Uidai)

Telangana HC4 Dec 2025WP/33021/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of Aadhaar date-of-birth update request. High Court disposed of writ petition directing UIDAI to consider pending application and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to UIDAI to consider petitioner's Aadhaar DOB update application if pending and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Saniya Sultana Vs The Unique Identification Authority of India (Uidai) — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33021 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Saniya Sultana, D/o Quayyum Khan, Aged about 18^years, Rl/o H. No.4-19912, Kakaliya Nagar, NTPC, Ramagundam Mandal, Somanapalle, A.P. Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana - 5C5215.

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Unique ldentification Authority of India (UlDAl), Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali [vlandir, Cole Market, New Delhi - 1 10001.

¶12

The Deputy Director, Regional Office, UlDAl, Hyderabad, 6th Floor, East Block, Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Beside Matrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500038.

¶13

Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary, tvlinistry of Electronics and lnformation Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Read, New Delhi - 1'10003.

¶14

State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secrelariat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500022.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavi{ filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lvlandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling for the records relating to the re1ection of^petitioner Aadhaar DOB update request (Enrolment No. 022101078O7402) as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of^petitioner frjfidamental rights, and further, directing a the Respondent I No. 1 to Consider petitioner fresh application And^grant one more opportunity^to update petitioner Date of Birth in Aadhaar Card No. 2230 3511 3673^to 0310912007, under the Exceptional Handling mechanism,^{upon verificationof the} annexed Birth Certificate, without insisting on further clarifications unless reasonably required, and grant such other relief(s) as this Honourable Court

¶17

deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, incrL ( ing any directions to ensure compriance by the Respondent and to prevent fur her hardship to the Petitio ner

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High cou r may be preased to issue an interim direction to the Resfondent No. 'r to prc r isionaly accept my request to update my Date of Birth in Aadhaar card No 1230 3511 3673 to 03logl2o07, under the Exceptionar Handring mechanism, sui) ect to verification of the annexed Birth certificate, and to refrain from rejecting fur her requests on the grounds of exceeding the allowed limit for DOB updates

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. MD FASIUDDIN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI N. BHUJANGA i qO Deputy Solicitor Gene al of lndia

¶22

counser for the Respondent No.4 : Gp FoR MUNrcrpAL At,r ,NrsrRATrON AND URBAN DEVELCII 'MENT

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I i I I i

--=----

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE IiONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.33O2r of 2025

04.t2.2025

Between:

Saniya Sultana

...Petitioner

AND

The Unique Identilication Authority of India & three others

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the respondent authorities to produce the records relating to the rejection of the petitioner,s Aadhaar date-of-birth update requesr (Enrolment No. O221OlO7BO74O2), alleging that the rejection was arbitrary, il1egal, and violative of fundamental rights. The petitioner further requests that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider her fresh application and provide one more opportunity to update the date of birth in Aadhaar Card No. 2230 3S1t 3673 to O3/O9/2OO7 under the exceptional-handling mechanism, based on the enclosecl birth

¶39

r-\ +'rf+t \l

¶40

¶41

certilicate, without seeking additional clanf cations unless reasonably necessary. The petitioner also prays fo : any other reliefs the Court deems iit to ensure compliance anr prevent further hardship.

¶42

, \

¶43

Heard Sri MD Fasiuddin, learned counsel .t r thc prtitioner; Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor Ge I :ral of India, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned Government pleir ler for Municipal Administration and Urban De;el6pmsr1, for re spon,i :nt No.4.

¶44

Learned counsel for the.petitioner made su: nissions on the lines of writ affidavit and requested this Court to :l rect respondent No. I to consider the petitioner's application as rxpeditiously as possible.

¶45

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that if the aforesaid petitione r s application is still pending for consideration, respondent No.1 ma ,, bc directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in Lccordance with law.

¶46

In view of the submissions made by learned cc tnsel appearing on either side and without expressing any opinion , n the merits ol the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing r :spondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's application, if penc.ng, arid pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a J,r riod of four (O4)

¶47

¶48

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

¶49

communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs.

¶50

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, slll stand closed

¶51

sD/_ C. DEE SISTANT RE RAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

I The Unique ldentification Authority of lndia (UIDA epresented by its Chief

¶56

Executive officer_Bangta sir,io ioro,'a;tt),i' ruti Delhi - 110001. ndir, Cole lVlarket, New

¶57

2 The Deputv Director. ft>gionat office, UrDAr. Hyderabad, 6th Froor. East co-." p r x' E ;;i'i

¶58

Pll!fu i'f lm# 54"n' " "^{lv;i ;i;';; ;, A;;; d;iH ft;" o.fi '}

¶59

1. The Secretary. Union of. lndia. l,4inistry of Electronics and lnformation Ii3363:, Ejectronics rrtir<etan o,'6C6''c#pi". Lodhi Read, ruew oerhi_

¶60

4' The Principar secretarv. Department of Municipar Administration and Urban -^{Devetopment,Secretaria t,.} rygeii^{ui J. i" j;ffi',-i';l} booo22 5. one CC to SRt. ruo rasiudorr.r, no;"."tli'f"<ip[rcf 6 one cc toSRr. N. BHUIANGA'H[o,"'oJprtisoriciror Generar of rndia loPUCl

¶61

1. Two CCs to Gp FOR MIJNtCtpAL ADM|N|STRAT|ON AND URBAN r ?fytf"j$t":r^{'High court ror tnl state ot-'ielrnirn",} "invo"i"u"o"toilri BM GJP

U{-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411212025

z.
-1 .-\ "
a
? t: .ic 2fiffi

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.33021 of 2025

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

."d"h
X.,

Saniya Sultana v. The Unique Identification Authority of India (Uidai)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saniya Sultana v. The Unique Identification Authority of India (Uidai)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Anumulapalli Harikishan Vs Union of India

M/s. Spoorthy Constructions Vs Union of India

Jetti Ankineedu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Hyder Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Nisar Javed Vs State of Telangana

Munagapati Venkatesh Vs The General Manager