The Karnataka High Court has sought the Union's response in a plea to restore a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a 82 -year-old retired Army officer and defence missile scientist challenging the Unique Identification Authority of India's (UIDAI) contracts with foreign private companies for biometric technology.

The original petition, filed by one Mr. Mathew Thomas, alleges that the foreign contracts entered into by UIDAI pose a grave threat to India's sovereignty and violate the fundamental right to privacy of Indian citizens, as submitted before the Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P Vivekananda.

To recap, the petitioner had in October 2022, withdrawn the same PIL before the Karnataka High Court with liberty to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32. Later, on 08.07.2024, the apex court ordered that 'there is really no occasion for the High Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to move the Supreme Court'. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner had sought liberty to once again move the High Court for the restoration of PIL under Article 226, which was granted before disposing of the petition.

For context, the petitioner was previously a petitioner in the landmark apex court case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

The petitioner contends in the plea that the facts raised in the current petition were not considered or adjudged by the apex court in Puttaswamy.

In the restoration application, it has been stated that the matter pertains to issues of national security since the biometric and demographic details of millions of citizens are at stake. It further urges the court that the case merits consideration since the private data of the people have been compromised and handed over to foreign entities and defence contractors through the agreements.

Today, when the matter was taken up, the Central Government Counsel MN Kumar sought time for filing objections in the interim application for restoration.

Noting the same, the Division Bench has listed the matter on 10^th October, 2026.

For context, the PIL challenges two specific agreements executed in 2010, which are namely, a contract between the President of India (acting through the Director General, UIDAI) and M/s. L1 Identity Solutions, and a contract with M/s. Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. on September 10, 2010.

The third contractor is a collaboration between M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., an Indian company, and MorphoSafran, which is a French Defence contractor, according to the petitioner.

The petitioner argues that the aforesaid Biometric Solution Providers (BSPs) were originally US-based companies. They are contractors to the US Defence and Homeland Security departments, as well as US intelligence agencies. Specifically, L1 Identity Solutions was later sold to French defence contractor Safran, and subsequently to private equity investors, now known as IDEMIA.

Citing specific contract clauses in agreements pertaining to the contractors, the petitioner alleges that the foreign private companies are authorized to collect, use, store, transfer, process, and link the personal data of Indian residents.

The petitioner has highlighted a clause in such contracts which allegedly states that biometric algorithms form part of a 'black box'.

Essentially, this clause indicates that UIDAI has no control over the processing of inputs and outputs within these systems such as 'black box', equivalent to giving foreign entities control over the database, the plea adds.

“….The citizens of India have been made to think that the government in its own capacity is collecting those databases. In reality, private agencies are operating in the guise of government bodies and are siphoning away valuable information which could very well lead to a major security threat to our nation…”, the plea initially filed in 2021 had stated.

The petitioner further argues that linking the Aadhaar number to various other databases such as for banking, taxation, and ration cards could enable real-time tracking of citizens. Such real time tracking enabled due to international contracts would also affect the top government officials, judges, and armed forces personnel etc whose whereabouts and details are sensitive in nature, by foreign intelligence agencies.

Along with the ground of right to privacy, a technical legal challenge has also been levelled by the petitioner with respect to execution of the contracts. It submits that the agreements were prepared on Rs. 500 non-judicial stamp paper, which violates the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, rendering them invalid contracts.

The petitioner has hence prayed for striking down all three contracts with foreign private companies as void in law. The plea seeking permission to be restored wants the court to issue a mandamus to the Union of India not to use the existing database of the UIDAI for any purpose whatsoever.

Consequently, the plea seeks a direction to ensure that data is not used for tracking citizens, or alternatively, to destroy the entire database. Additionally, the data stored by the contractors should be destroyed and audited by Indian auditors, the plea adds.

Other prayers in the plea are directing the Union to make suitable changes to the Aadhaar Act to achieve its objectives, and appointing a commission to decide on measures to prevent the misuse of data already in the possession of foreign entities.

Case Title: Mathew Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: IA 1/24 in WP 17664/2021