Synopsis

Twin brothers were issued Aadhaar cards in 2012 as minors. Upon attaining majority, they attempted to update their biometrics but faced persistent difficulties due to “biometric mismatch”. The authorities gave shifting advice – first to apply for cancellation, then said cancellation was revoked, then to update, and finally informed that their Aadhaar numbers had been suspended/cancelled. Unable to secure a valid Aadhaar despite repeated visits, they filed a writ petition. The Bombay High Court held that genuine residents cannot be left remediless due to technical biometric anomalies, especially when no fraud or impersonation is alleged. The court directed the petitioners to submit fresh enrollment applications and directed UIDAI to process them expeditiously within four weeks. Additionally, the court issued broad prospective directions to UIDAI for handling cases of biometric mismatch, deactivation, and technical irregularities in a fair, transparent, and citizen-centric manner.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 6th May, 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 10771 of 2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 – Sections 23, 31; Aadhaar (Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2016 – Regulations 28, 31; Constitution of India – Articles 21, 226

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay

Writ petition no. 10771 of 2025

Rohit bandu nikalje and anr. (petitioners) vs. The regional officer, uidai, mumbai regional office and ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice ravindra v. ghuge and hon’ble mr. justice hiten s. venegavkar

Date of judgment: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Aadhaar (targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) act, 2016 – section 23 (power of authority to frame processes for enrollment, authentication, data management), section 31 (alteration of demographic and biometric information)

Aadhaar (enrollment and update) regulations, 2016 – regulation 28 (deactivation of aadhaar numbers due to bad data, mixed or anomalous biometrics, and reactivation upon biometric update), regulation 31 (omission of aadhaar number and requirement of re-enrollment)

Constitution of india, 1950 – article 14 (right to equality), article 21 (right to life and dignity, including fair procedure for identity documentation), article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) can leave a genuine resident without a valid Aadhaar indefinitely on account of a “biometric mismatch” that occurred through no fault of the resident, and whether the High Court can direct UIDAI to accept fresh enrollment applications or rectify the records in a time-bound manner.

<u

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.