THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, UIDAI   (Appellants)  PL   (Respondents)

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100406 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

(2JB, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL JJ.)

Facts: The present intra-Court appeal is filed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge, who were the Deputy Director General FAA, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI as well as the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 08.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.105614/2022, whereby the petition filed by the wife came to be allowed setting aside the endorsements issued by the appellants/Authorities, rejecting the application of the wife seeking for information contained in the Aadhaar Card of her husband under Right to Information (RTI). Further direction was issued remitting the matter back to the third respondent-Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, to issue notice to the petitioner’s husband and hear him and thereafter reconsider the application filed by the petitioner/wife seeking information to enable her to enforce the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.312/2012

Issue: Whether application of the wife seeking for information contained in the Aadhaar Card of her husband under Right to Information (RTI) has been rightly rejected?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:

It is contended by the respondents that the direction of the learned Single Judge is in violation of the mandate under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, which provides that no order could be passed by the Court relating to disclosure of information, including the identity information or authentication records without giving an opportunity of hearing to such person. It is also contended that the amendment to Section 33 of Aadhaar Act relating to disclosure of information of Aadhaar number holder as well as hearing to be made before the order divulging the information of Aadhaar number holder is to be made by a Judge of the High Court. It is submitted that the amendment has been made to Section 33 of Aadhaar Act pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Another (Aadhaar) v. Union of India & Another. It is submitted that there has to be strict adherence to the procedure for disclosure of Aadhaar information only after hearing the Aadhaar number holder as well as requirement that hearing has to be made by a Judge of the High Court.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would contend that the information that was sought by the petitioner is as regards her husband and the restrictions placed under RTI Act cannot be made applicable and such restrictions are to be confined to application for information sought for by third person. It is submitted that relationship of husband and wife after marriage results in merging of the identity of both and accordingly, there could be no objection for divulging the information of spouse at the instance of other spouse. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in effect takes care of statutory mandate that the Aadhaar number holder is required to be heard before disclosure of information made and since the matter is remitted back to the third respondent with direction to hear him and accordingly, no prejudice would be caused. Learned counsel further contends that whereabouts of her husband not being available as he was absconding, the only manner of enforcing the order of maintenance is to proceed against him and such rights though substantively affirmed by the order of the Court cannot be effectuated without necessary details of her husband.

Held: The court while disposing off the present appeal, held that, “It is also to be noted that by virtue of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy), a person whose information is sought to be divulged has right to put-forth his case before such disclosure in terms of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act. The right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy which is conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme. The relationship by marriage which is a union of two partners does not eclipse the right to privacy which is the right of an individual and the autonomy of such individual’s right stands recognized and protected by the procedure of hearing contemplated under Section 33. The marriage by itself does not do away with the procedural right of hearing conferred under Section 33 of Aadhaar Act. Consideration of case of the Aadhaar card holder is to be by a responsible Authority as stipulated under the Aadhaar Act, which lays emphasis on the importance to the right to privacy and the same cannot be diluted by delegating the same to an inferior Authority. The hearing and decision conferred under Section 33 is a non-delegable duty.”