Rohit Bandu Nikalje And Anr vs The Regional Officer, Uidai, Mumbai Regional Office And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:22042-DB
23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10771 OF 2025
1. Rohit Bandu Nikalje,
Aged : 19 years, Adult Indian Inhabitant
2. Rahul Bandu Nikalje,
Aged : 19 years, Adult Indian Inhabitant,
Both Residing at – Vikas Nagar,
a Group, Behind Durgamata Mandir,
Pune City, Pune – 411 014. … PETITIONERS
V E R S U S
1. The Regional Officer, UIDAI,
Mumbai Regional Office,
th
7 Floor, MTNL Building,
GD Somnani Road, Cuff Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 086.
2. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Government of India,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
rd
Regional Office, 3 Floor, South Wing
Khanija Bhavan, No. 49, Race Course Road,
Begaluru – 560 001.
3. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
CS Office Main Building,
th
Mantralaya, 6 Floor, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 400 032.
4. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Government Pleader. … RESPONDENTS
----
1 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
Ms. Harshada Shirsath a/w Mr. Ramaprasad Deore i/b. Mr. Swaraj
Sabale, for Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP a/w Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the State.
Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha and Ms. Gargi Warunjikar, for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
th
DATE : 06 MAY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER HITEN. S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the State, and the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The Petitioners, who are twin brothers, have invoked
the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
to forthwith update the biometric details linked with Aadhaar Card
2 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
Nos. 6123 2462 3213 and 4118 7935 0468, or, in the alternative, to
issue fresh Aadhaar cards to them without further delay. The
Petitioners’ case is that they were issued Aadhaar cards in the year
2012 when they were minors, after submission of the requisite
documents and biometric information. According to them, when
they attained the relevant age and were required to update their
biometrics, they approached the concerned authorities in the year
2022 and submitted the necessary documents and biometric data.
However, despite compliance on their part, the updated Aadhaar
cards were not issued.
4. The Petitioners state that upon inquiry with the UIDAI
helpline, they were informed that their update request had been
rejected on account of mismatch in biometrics. They thereafter
raised several grievances on the UIDAI portal and were ultimately
asked to personally visit the Regional Office at Mumbai. The
rd
Petitioners visited the Regional Office on 23 April, 2024, where
they were informed that their biometric update request was rejected
because of biometric mismatch. They were advised to apply for
cancellation of the existing Aadhaar numbers and thereafter apply
for fresh enrollment. Acting upon this advice, they submitted
3 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
consent forms for cancellation and waited for communication from
the Respondent authorities. When no communication was received,
th
they again visited the Regional Office on 30 May, 2024, and were
then informed that, in view of a new circular, the earlier process for
cancellation had been revoked and that they would now be required
to update the existing Aadhaar numbers with corrected biometrics.
5. The Petitioners contend that they thereafter consented
to correction and updation of their existing Aadhaar records. They
were informed that their request had been forwarded to the
competent office and that necessary action would be taken.
th nd
However, despite repeated personal visits on 9 June, 2024, and 2
September, 2024, they were merely told that the matter was under
process. According to the Petitioners, this administrative uncertainty
has caused them serious prejudice. They are students pursuing
higher education; Aadhaar is being insisted upon for admissions,
insurance, identity verification and allied purposes. It is stated that
their admissions are provisional and may be affected for want of
valid Aadhaar details. Petitioner No. 2, who is pursuing sporting
activity in horse riding, also requires insurance coverage, which has
allegedly been withheld for want of a valid Aadhaar number.
4 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
6. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners have not committed any fraud, impersonation or
suppression. They were minors when the original enrollment was
done. If the biometrics of the two brothers were interchanged or
incorrectly captured, the fault cannot be fastened upon them. She
submits that the Petitioners have repeatedly approached the UIDAI
authorities and have complied with every instruction given to them.
At one stage, they were asked to apply for cancellation; later they
were told that cancellation was not available; thereafter they were
told to seek update; and subsequently they were informed that the
Aadhaar numbers had been suspended or cancelled. Such shifting
stands of the authority, according to her, have left the Petitioners
without an effective identity credential despite no fault on their part.
7. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners further submits
that Aadhaar has become an important identity instrument in
ordinary civic, educational and institutional life. The Petitioners
cannot be made to suffer indefinitely on account of an error in the
Aadhaar ecosystem. She submits that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are
statutory authorities and are duty-bound to either correct the existing
Aadhaar records or permit fresh enrollment in a time-bound manner.
5 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
She, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the
Respondents to either update the Petitioners’ biometric records or
issue fresh Aadhaar numbers/cards after fresh enrollment.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 submits that the Petitioners’ earlier Aadhaar records disclosed
biometric mismatch and that, upon technical verification, the
existing Aadhaar numbers were suspended/cancelled in accordance
with the applicable procedure. It is submitted that once biometric
mismatch is detected, the authority cannot mechanically update the
existing Aadhaar records, as the integrity of the Central Identities
Data Repository must be maintained. It is further submitted that the
Petitioners are at liberty to apply afresh for Aadhaar enrollment with
valid supporting documents and fresh biometric capture, and that
such application will be processed in accordance with the Aadhaar
Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations,
2016. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondents have no
intention of denying Aadhaar to eligible residents, but the process
must follow statutory safeguards.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
6 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
the documents placed before us. The controversy is narrow. The
Petitioners do not seek a declaration that the Respondent authorities
must disregard biometric safeguards. Equally, the Respondents do
not dispute that the Petitioners may submit fresh enrollment
applications with current biometrics and supporting documents. The
real grievance is that the Petitioners have been moved from one
administrative process to another without a final resolution, though
the problem appears to have arisen from mismatched or anomalous
biometric capture at the stage of enrollment/update.
10. The Aadhaar Act, 2016 recognizes Aadhaar as an
identification number issued to an individual and vests UIDAI with
the responsibility of issuing Aadhaar numbers and maintaining the
Central Identities Data Repository. Section 23 empowers the
Authority to frame and administer processes relating to enrollment,
authentication, data management and issuance of new Aadhaar
numbers in appropriate cases. The Act also contemplates alteration
of demographic and biometric information under Section 31 and
empowers the framing of regulations concerning deactivation or
omission of Aadhaar numbers. The official amended text of the Act
records the statutory basis for alteration of demographic and
7 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
biometric information and for regulating omission/deactivation
processes.
11. The Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations,
2016 are directly material. Regulation 28 deals with deactivation of
Aadhaar numbers. It contemplates deactivation where information
captured has been flagged as bad data requiring update, including
mixed or anomalous biometrics. The Regulations also provide that
where a person attains the age of 5 or 15 years, the first Aadhaar
update must necessarily be accompanied by biometric update; if
such biometric update is not carried out within the prescribed
period, the Aadhaar number may remain deactivated, but the holder
may activate it by updating biometric information. Regulation 31
further provides that where an Aadhaar number is omitted for
reasons other than multiple Aadhaar numbers, the concerned
individual is required to re-enroll; where the Aadhaar number is
deactivated, the holder is required to update identity information
partly or fully as per UIDAI guidelines.
12. The statutory scheme, therefore, does not support an
indefinite administrative limbo. If the case is one of deactivation,
8 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
the authority must indicate the rectification pathway. If the case is
one of omission/cancellation requiring re-enrollment, the authority
must accept and process fresh enrollment in accordance with law. In
either event, an eligible resident cannot be left remediless merely
because an earlier biometric record is defective, particularly where
there is no allegation of fraud or impersonation by the Petitioners.
13. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another vs.
Union of India and others, (2019) 1 SCC 1 , the Constitution Bench
upheld the Aadhaar framework substantially, while emphasizing
that the Aadhaar architecture must operate within constitutional
limitations, with safeguards for dignity, privacy, proportionality and
exclusion concerns. The decision does not authorize administrative
denial of identity rectification where the resident is willing to submit
to lawful verification. The ratio relevant for the present case is that
Aadhaar, being a statutory identity framework, must function in a
manner that is procedurally fair and constitutionally reasonable.
14. In Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59 ,
the Supreme Court considered the relationship between Aadhaar and
statutory identity requirements in the context of PAN. Though
9 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
arising in a different statutory setting, the judgment recognizes the
State’s legitimate interest in maintaining identity integrity. That
principle assists the Respondents to the extent that Aadhaar cannot
be corrected contrary to biometric safeguards. However, the same
principle also requires the authority to provide a lawful route for
genuine persons to cure defects and obtain valid identity credentials.
15. The power of this Court under Article 226 to issue a
writ of mandamus is well settled. In Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another vs. K.S.
Jagannathan and another, (1986) 2 SCC 679 , the Supreme Court
held that the High Courts may issue directions where a public
authority has failed to exercise discretion or has exercised it in a
manner which frustrates the purpose of the statute. The principle
squarely applies here. UIDAI is not being directed to bypass
verification; it is being directed to exercise its statutory function in a
proper, time-bound and legally accountable manner.
16. On the facts of the present case, we find that the
Petitioners have approached the authorities repeatedly. The record
indicates that they were first told that the update was rejected on
10 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
account of biometric mismatch; thereafter they were advised to
apply for cancellation; thereafter they were informed that
cancellation had been revoked; thereafter they were told that update
would be processed; and eventually they were informed that the
Aadhaar numbers had been suspended/cancelled and that fresh
enrollment would be necessary. Such inconsistent administrative
communication is unsatisfactory. It is not expected of a statutory
authority dealing with foundational identity credentials to leave
young students without a clear, written, time-bound remedy.
17. At the same time, this Court cannot direct UIDAI to
restore or update an Aadhaar number if the statutory system has
detected mixed or anomalous biometrics and if the applicable
regulations require omission or fresh enrollment. The integrity of
the Aadhaar database is a matter of public importance. The proper
balance, therefore, is to direct the Petitioners to submit fresh
enrollment applications with fresh biometric capture and supporting
documents, and to direct the Respondent authorities to process the
same expeditiously without raising any objection founded merely on
the earlier mismatched biometric record, unless any independent
legal disqualification or fraud is found.
11 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
18. We are also of the view that the Petitioners cannot be
asked to produce documents beyond those prescribed by law. If the
Petitioners produce the documents required under the Aadhaar Act,
the Regulations and the applicable UIDAI enrollment/update norms,
the Respondents shall not insist upon any extraneous or impossible
requirement. The maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia , though not
necessary to decide the matter independently, reflects a settled
principle that the law does not compel the impossible. The
Petitioners cannot be compelled to cure an administrative biometric
mismatch except through the lawful technological and procedural
mechanism available with UIDAI.
19. In the result, the Petition is disposed off with the
following directions. The Petitioners shall, within fifteen days from
today, appear before the Regional Office of UIDAI at Mumbai or
such Aadhaar Seva Kendra as may be specified by Respondent Nos.
1 and 2, and submit fresh applications for Aadhaar enrollment with
fresh biometric capture and all supporting documents prescribed
under law. The Respondent authorities shall accept such
applications, issue proper acknowledgment, and shall not reject the
applications merely on the ground that the earlier Aadhaar numbers
12 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
were suspended, deactivated, omitted or cancelled due to biometric
mismatch. Upon receipt of the applications and completion of
biometric capture, the Respondent authorities shall process the
applications strictly in accordance with the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and
the Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2016, and shall
take a final decision within four weeks from the date of submission
of the applications. If the applications are found complete and no
independent legal impediment exists, fresh Aadhaar numbers/cards
shall be issued to the Petitioners within the said period. If for any
legally sustainable reason the applications cannot be processed, the
Respondent authorities shall communicate a reasoned written order
to the Petitioners within the same period.
20. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the technical correctness of the earlier biometric
mismatch report. The present order is confined to ensuring that the
Petitioners are not left without a remedy and that the statutory
authority acts in a fair, transparent and time-bound manner. The
Respondent authorities shall not insist upon any document other
than those required under law for fresh Aadhaar enrollment. The
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.
13 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
21. Before parting with the present matter, we deem
it appropriate to observe that this Court is increasingly noticing
cases where citizens are compelled to approach constitutional
Courts on account of biometric mismatch, failed biometric updation,
deactivation, suspension, omission, cancellation or technical
irregularities in Aadhaar records. In several such cases, genuine
residents, including students, senior citizens, labourers, persons
from rural areas and economically weaker sections, are made to
repeatedly visit different offices and authorities without any clear
resolution or effective guidance regarding the procedure required to
rectify their Aadhaar records. Such situations result in unnecessary
hardship, denial of access to essential services and avoidable
litigation.
22. The Aadhaar framework established under the Aadhaar
(Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and
Services) Act, 2016 constitutes one of the foundational identity
infrastructures of the country. The object of the enactment is not
merely to create a technological database, but to establish a reliable
and accessible identity mechanism for residents so as to facilitate
delivery of welfare measures, public services, institutional access
14 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
and effective governance. The State, therefore, has a legitimate
administrative and constitutional interest in ensuring that every
eligible resident possesses a valid and functional Aadhaar identity.
At the same time, implementation of the statutory framework must
remain citizen-centric, facilitative and constitutionally compliant.
23. The Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar (Enrollment
and Update) Regulations, 2016 themselves contemplate situations
involving updation, correction, deactivation, omission and fresh
enrollment. Regulation 28 recognizes circumstances involving
deactivation on account of defective or anomalous data and also
contemplates biometric updation after attainment of prescribed age
thresholds. Regulation 31 further contemplates situations where
fresh enrollment may become necessary after omission or
cancellation of Aadhaar numbers. The statutory framework,
therefore, itself recognizes that technological or biometric
irregularities may arise during implementation and provides
remedial mechanisms to address such contingencies.
24. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another vs.
Union of India and others, (2019) 1 SCC 1 , while upholding the
15 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
Aadhaar framework, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining safeguards
against exclusion and recognized the importance of fair and
accessible mechanisms in matters concerning identity and
authentication. The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution necessarily requires that administrative procedures
affecting civic identity must operate in a fair, transparent and
reasonable manner. A genuine resident cannot be left remediless
merely because a technological or biometric anomaly has occurred
in the system.
25. It is equally necessary to observe that maintenance of
the integrity and purity of the Aadhaar database is a matter of
national importance and the authorities are fully justified in
adopting safeguards against duplication, impersonation and
fraudulent enrollment. However, while preserving the sanctity of the
biometric identity framework, the authorities are equally expected to
adopt a humane, responsive and facilitative approach while dealing
with genuine cases involving biometric mismatch, failed updation or
technical irregularities, particularly where no allegation of fraud or
impersonation exists against the concerned resident.
16 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and with a view to
reducing avoidable hardship to genuine residents facing Aadhaar-
related technical or biometric difficulties, we deem it appropriate to
issue the following directions to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for future
guidance and compliance :
(i) Whenever any citizen approaches the Aadhaar Authorities
with a grievance relating to biometric mismatch, failed biometric
up-dation, deactivation, suspension, omission, cancellation or
technical rejection of Aadhaar records, the concerned authority shall
inform such citizen in writing or through officially recognized
electronic communication about the precise status of the Aadhaar
record and the legally permissible remedial procedure available
under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the Aadhaar (Enrollment and
Update) Regulations, 2016.
(ii) The Respondent Authorities shall endeavour to maintain an
appropriate facilitation mechanism at the Regional Offices and
Aadhaar Seva Kendras for dealing with cases involving biometric
mismatch, failed updation, deactivation or technical irregularities in
Aadhaar records.
17 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
(iii) In cases where Aadhaar enrollment was originally undertaken
during minority and biometric mismatch or authentication failure is
noticed subsequently upon attainment of age prescribed for
mandatory biometric updation, the concerned authorities shall
provide reasonable opportunity to such applicants for fresh
biometric capture and rectification in accordance with law.
(iv) The authorities shall ensure that genuine applicants are not
unnecessarily compelled to repeatedly visit multiple offices without
being informed of the status of their applications or the procedure
required for redressal of their grievance.
(v) Wherever fresh enrollment is permissible under the applicable
statutory framework and regulations, the authorities shall facilitate
such fresh enrollment in accordance with law and shall not reject the
request merely on the ground that an earlier Aadhaar number stood
suspended, deactivated, omitted or cancelled due to biometric
mismatch or technical irregularities, unless any case of fraud,
impersonation or duplication is detected.
(vi) The authorities shall endeavour to process requests relating to
18 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
biometric correction, updation, reactivation or fresh enrollment
expeditiously and preferably within a reasonable period of four
weeks from the date of submission of requisite documents and
biometrics.
(vii) The authorities shall not insist upon any documents other than
those prescribed under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, the Regulations
framed thereunder and officially notified UIDAI requirements.
(viii) While maintaining the integrity and security of the Aadhaar
database, the Respondent Authorities shall adopt a fair, humane and
citizen-centric approach while dealing with cases involving
students, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, economically
weaker sections and other genuine residents facing technological or
biometric difficulties.
27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, we are of the considered view that the Petitioners
cannot be left without an effective remedy merely because a
biometric mismatch has occurred in the Aadhaar system,
particularly when there is no allegation of fraud, impersonation or
19 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::

23.AS.WP.10771.2025.odt
suppression against them. The Respondent Authorities are therefore
required to facilitate lawful rectification and fresh enrollment in
accordance with the statutory framework.
28. Rule is made absolute in the above terms . There shall
be no order as to costs.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
20 of 20
Suﬁyan Syed - PA
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 13:28:32 :::