Case at a glance: The Kerala High Court has directed UIDAI to compare unidentified fingerprints from a 2016 double murder scene with Aadhaar-stored fingerprints for Coimbatore District and inform police of the matched persons' whereabouts. It held that Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act allows such disclosure on a High Court order, and that no core biometric data would be transmitted. The Court said the order cannot be cited as a precedent.
The case arose from a robbery-motivated double murder on 14 November 2016 at Kannukurissi, Palakkad. One accused was identified through a fingerprint match, but six other prints from the scene remained unmatched despite comparison with over 1,200 persons. UIDAI declined the police request to compare the suspects' prints with the Aadhaar database.
The State, through the Crime Branch, approached the High Court. The Court impleaded CDAC Thiruvananthapuram suo motu, and CDAC confirmed that JPEG prints could be converted to binary format using software and NAFIS.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a High Court direct UIDAI to compare crime-scene fingerprints with the Aadhaar database for a criminal investigation?
Sections 28, 29 and 33 of the Aadhaar Act
The Court held that the bars in Sections 28 and 29 are lifted by Section 33(1) where a court not inferior to a High Court Judge orders disclosure. The hearing requirement in the first proviso was met because UIDAI was heard; hearing unknown Aadhaar holders was unnecessary. The second proviso, which bars sharing core biometrics, was not engaged because only matching and whereabouts were sought.
Relying on the Aadhaar judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy, the Court held that collection of information for criminal investigation is outside the privacy embargo, and that Section 33 “provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation.” The comparison was confined to Coimbatore District on the petitioner's own statement.
What the Court Actually Held
- UIDAI is to compare the suspects' fingerprints, conveyed in binary format, with its stored prints for Coimbatore District, and inform the petitioner of the whereabouts of matched persons.
- No core biometric data is to be transmitted.
- The order is passed on exceptional facts and cannot be cited as a precedent.
- The writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a rare judicial direction to use Aadhaar data in a criminal investigation.
- It interprets Section 33(1) and its provisos.
- It limits the order to its facts and to one district.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Investigating Agencies
- Approach the High Court under Section 33(1) with a narrow, specific request.
- Show prior efforts to identify suspects through conventional means.
For Privacy Advocates
- Note the Court's limits: no transfer of core biometrics and no precedential value.
Key Takeaways
- Section 33(1) permits disclosure on a High Court order.
- Only matching and whereabouts were ordered.
- The search was limited to Coimbatore District.
- The order is not to be cited as a precedent.
Frequently Asked Questions
No core biometric data is to be transmitted; UIDAI is to match and report whereabouts.
The Court said it is passed on exceptional facts and cannot be cited as a precedent.
It confirmed the prints could be converted into the binary format needed for comparison.
Conclusion
The judgment carefully balances privacy protections in the Aadhaar Act with the needs of a long-stalled murder investigation.
Practical takeaway: Aadhaar data access for investigations remains exceptional and must come through a narrowly framed High Court order.