Marriage Does Not Eclipse Right To Individual Privacy, Autonomy: Karnataka High Court On Wife’s RTI Seeking Husband’s Aadhar Details
Case: The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another AND P Lavanya & Another
Coram: Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil
Case No.: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100406 OF 2023
Court Observation: “Single Judge has grossly erred…such power of passing an order to divulge the information is conferred on a Court not inferior to that of a Judge of the High Court in terms of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act. The right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy which is conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme. The relationship by marriage which is a union of two partners does not eclipse the right to privacy which is the right of an individual and the autonomy of such individual’s right stands recognized and protected by the procedure of hearing contemplated under Section 33.”
“It is a settled principle that, if the Act provides that a particular act is to be made in a particular manner, it should be done in such manner or not at all. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge could not have remitted the matter to the third respondent-Central Public Information Officer (UIDAI).”
“Consideration of case of the Aadhaar card holder is to be by a responsible Authority as stipulated under the Aadhaar Act, which lays emphasis on the importance to the right to privacy and the same cannot be diluted by delegating the same to an inferior Authority. The hearing and decision conferred under Section 33 is a non-delegable duty. The above discussion would clearly lead to a conclusion that a person whose information is to be divulged is to be arrayed as respondent to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge.”
Previous Posts
