Dead Person's Fingerprint Can't Be Used To Identify Her From Aadhar Database: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by the Bengaluru Police, seeking to identify a deceased woman by matching her fingerprints with the Aadhar data maintained by Unique Identification Authority of India.Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that a live fingerprint is required for the purpose of authentication and as such, "a dead person's fingerprint cannot be directed...
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by the Bengaluru Police, seeking to identify a deceased woman by matching her fingerprints with the Aadhar data maintained by Unique Identification Authority of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that a live fingerprint is required for the purpose of authentication and as such, "a dead person's fingerprint cannot be directed to be identified through a search on the UIDAI database.”
The single bench also cited "technical constraints" in matching a dead fingerprint. It observed,
“There being technical constraints in such matching fingerprint with the Aadhar number as also there being a requirement to maintain privacy of individuals and also on account of security that a live fingerprint is required for the purpose of authentication, I am of the opinion that the dead person's fingerprint cannot be directed to be identified through a search on the UIDAI database.”
The Police are investigating a murder case registered after an unknown woman's body was found in a canal. The investigation could not proceed further on account of her identity not being capable of being verified.
In this backdrop, the SHO of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru made an application to UIDAI seeking to match her fingerprints with the Aadhar data.
The said request was declined stating that unless an order is passed by High Court, no details under the Aadhar Act could be made available. Following this, the Police had moved the high court.
Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H appearing for UIDAI and the Ministry of Electronics and Information contended that for usage of biometrical identification system under UIDAI, firstly there is required to be a live biometric information system, that is to say the person has to be alive when the fingerprint is used for the purpose of identification.
"The finger print of a dead person cannot be used for identification of a person on the UIDAI database. This is on account of security, in as much as only a finger cannot be used for identification and the person has to be alive at the time when the identification is to be done,” Bhushan said.
He further submitted that the database is designed in such a manner that there is no search which can be made as regards the fingerprint on the entire database— in as much as it is only identification which is made on one is to one basis. "That is, the Aadhar number with the fingerprint or biometric information. Only Aadhar no. or only biometric information cannot be used for the purpose of searching the database.”
He added, “A fingerprint cannot be used to search on the database to identify the corresponding Aadhar number and Aadhar number cannot be used for the purpose of identifying the corresponding fingerprint. Only when both of them are available the identification could be done.”
However, he submitted that information as regards to the usage of the Aadhar card could be given because there is no identification which is required to be made. "As such, the present case on account of security and privacy as also on account of search criteria not being available in the UIDAI register for matching a fingerprint with the Aadhar number, without Aadhar number being available, the respondents are unable to process the request of petitioner and not able to identify the deceased based on the fingerprint," Bhushan finally submitted.
On going through the submissions, the bench said, “In the present matter it is not that R2 (UIDAI) does not want to share the information, it is that respondent cannot share the information sought for by the petitioner in as much as the fingerprint cannot be matched with the Aadhar number to disclose the identity of the deceased. If that be so there will be no purpose in issuing a mandamus as sought for by the petitioner.”
Dismissing the petition it said, “As such reserving the liberty to the petitioner to identify and ascertain the identity of the deceased through any other manner which may be possible and in case any Aadhar card made available, directing respondents to furnish details of usage thereof. The petition stands dismissed.”
Appearance: Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H for Respondents.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION & ANR
Case No: WP 25182/2024