Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act pending in Supreme Court, Justice Ajit Kumar points out "a very sorry state of affairs" in UIDAI, a failed entity as per CAG

In Prashant Rajak vs  The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology & Ors. (2026), Justice Ajit Kumar of Patna High Court passed a 3-page long order dated March 16, 2023, wherein, he concluded:"4. It is a very sorry state of affairs, which this Court has witnessed today, that in so many cases, for correction Central Identities Data Repository" (CIDR) in the Aadhaar date of birth, the applicants are forced to knock the doors of this Court. It is expected that the Director, UIDAI Regional Office, Patna, would issue appropriate instruction to the persons who are dealing with such issues, so that this Court is unnecessary not burdened with such petitions where, for correction of date of birth, the statutory requirement of documents are already being fulfilled and the persons who are at the helm of affairs are to carry out the formalities, and accordingly, the necessary corrections are required to be made in the Aadhar database, which somewhere is not being addressed properly." 

The order refers to "Central Identities Data Repository" (CIDR) envisaged under the Aadhaar Act, 2016. As per Section 2 (h) of the Aadhaar Act, CIDR "means a centralised database in one or more locations containing all Aadhaar numbers issued to Aadhaar number holders along with the corresponding demographic information and biometric information of such individuals and other information related thereto. "

Justice Kumar added:"5. Considering the nature of relief sought, this Court finds it appropriate to direct this petitioner to approach the Director, UIDAI Regional Office, Patna, within a period of one week, and on his appearance it is expected that necessary corrections shall be made looking to the nature of the document, which is required for making such corrections. 6. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of." One week deadline given to  Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI ended on March 21, 2026.  The respondents were: Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, UIDAI Through its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), CEO, UIDAI, Director, UIDAI Regional Office, 4th Floor, Lalit Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

The petitioner had prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to make correction against Date of Birth, in his AADHAR card in accordance with his matriculation certificate. He has disclosed his Aadhaar Number which is refereed in the Court's order. The disclosure is contrary to the provisions of the Aadhaar Act. 

The petitioner committed the blunder of referring to 12-digit Aadhaar number as Aadhaar card, which has not been rectified by the Court. Under Section 2 (a) of the Aadhaar Act “Aadhaar number” means an identification number issued to an individual under sub-section (3) of section 3. 

Section 3 (3) reads:"On receipt of the demographic information and biometric information under sub-section (1), the Authority shall, after verifying the information, in such manner as may be specified by regulations, issue an Aadhaar number to such individual." 

Such an individual refers to a resident of India. Section 2(v) states that “resident” means an individual who has resided in India for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of application for enrolment. 

Section 3 (1) reads: "Every resident shall be entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic information and biometric information by undergoing the process of enrolment:Provided that the Central Government may, from time to time, notify such other category of individuals who may be entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number."

Section 2 (k) states that “demographic information” includes information relating to the name, date of birth, address and other relevant information of an individual, as may be specified by regulations for the purpose of issuing an Aadhaar number, but shall not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history. 

Section 2 (g) states that “biometric information” means photograph, finger print, Iris scan, or duch other biological attributes of an individual as may be specified by regulations. 

Supreme Court's 1448-page long judgment dated September 26, 2018 mentions " “demographic information" on 149 occasions, "biometric information” on 347 occasions, "core biometric information” on 72 occassions and "biological attributes" on 20 occasions. 

As per Section 2 (b) “Aadhaar number holder” means an individual who has been issued an Aadhaar number based on "biometric information” under this Act. The petitioner in question is such an individual. 

The counsel for the Union of India submitted that  that the petitioner with representation may appear before the Director, UIDAI Regional Office, Patna, on any working day, and the necessary correction in the Aadhar database shall be made by looking to the statutory documents, which are required for necessary corrections. It not clear whether UIDAI has complied with the deadline given by the High Court. 

Is it not strange that even before the adjudication of the Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act by the 7-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vested interests like World Bank Group and NATO are making biometric profiling based Central Identities Data Repository CIDR of Aadhaar Numbers, the online database irreversible by making it's use a business as usual activity unmindful of its illegitimacy?