Case refers to the brutal assassination of a middle-aged couple in Sreekrishnapuram in Palakkad in 2016 allegedly with a motive of robbing them. The local police and Crime Branch have been investigating the case but they have not been able to trace out the offenders.

Justice G. Girish gave the direction to the Union and the Deputy Director of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in a plea preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Palakkad.

The Court, however, observed that the decision cannot be considered as a precedent and the direction was made in the special circumstances of the present case:

“It is made clear that the order in this regard is passed by this Court considering the exceptional facts and circumstances of this case, and that this cannot be cited as a precedent to follow the same course in other cases which may arise in future.”

The investigations led to one Rajendran, whose fingerprint matched with the fingerprint collected at the crime scene. Though the police collected six sample fingerprints from the crime scene and compared it with more than 1200 persons, they were not able to trace the culprits.

At this juncture, the investigating officer sought the assistance from the UIDAI to compare the sample fingerprints with those stored in the Aadhaar database for Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu to trace out the culprits. When the request was rejected, the High Court was approached.

The Centre opposed the plea for two reasons: law does not permit sharing of information stored in UIDAI database; and there are technology constraints to match the static fingerprint collected through with those stored in the database. It was also pointed out that if the present plea is allowed, it would open a floodgate of similar requests in the future.

After hearing the rival contentions, the Court referred to Sections 28, 29 and 33 [Disclosure of information in certain cases] of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. It then remarked that information can be disclosed pursuant to the orders of a court, not inferior to that of a High Court judge.

“As per the above provision of law the embargo contained under Sections 28 & 29 of the Aadhaar Act have no applicability in a case where disclosure of information is sought pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court. However, the first proviso to the said Section mandates giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the Aadhaar number holder concerned before passing an order in the above regard. The second proviso forbids the disclosure of core biometric information,” the Court observed about Section 33.

The Court then remarked that the first part of the first proviso requirement was satisfied in the present case. However, the second part thereof cannot be satisfied since the persons are not identified, making it redundant in the present case. With respect to the second proviso requirement, since there is no request for transmission of fingerprint, iris or other data, it was noted.

“Once the whereabouts of those persons whose fingerprints matched with the fingerprints collected from the crime scene are conveyed to the investigating agency, it is up to them to proceed further with the further steps of investigation pertaining to the collection of fingerprints from those persons and its comparison, which are permissible in criminal investigation. Therefore, the embargo contained in the second proviso to Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act has no applicability in the present case,” the Court added.

It also rejected the contention that the Puttaswamy's case forbid the collection of data by referring to the concluding part of the judgment:

“It is clear from conclusion No.9 hereinabove that the collection of information in connection with the investigation of a crime is excluded from the legal embargo related to right to privacy discussed in the aforesaid case.”

The Court further noted that the technical difficulty pointed out was also dispelled. Thus, it allowed the plea.

Counsel for the petitioner: P. Narayanan - Spl. G.P. To DGP and Addl. P.P., Sajju.S. - Senior G.P., M. Muhammed Shafi - Addl. State Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the respondents: Suvin R. Menon - Senior Panel Counsel, O.M. Shalina - Deputy Solicitor General Of India