Introduction:
In the case of Sitaram Barman v. State (WP-4672-2024), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, issued a crucial direction to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to verify whether the Aadhaar number of a missing girl had been used for any online transactions. The Court observed that since Aadhaar is a unique identifier intrinsically linked to an individual’s biometrics, its linkage with bank accounts, SIM cards, or other services could provide vital leads to locate the missing person. The petitioner, a distressed father, approached the High Court seeking the production and recovery of his missing daughter, expressing deep dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of the police investigation. The case highlights the interplay between technology and justice, where digital footprints can become essential tools for tracing missing persons and ensuring accountability in police investigations.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sushma Pandey, submitted that his daughter had gone missing, and despite an FIR being lodged under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping, the police had failed to make meaningful progress. He argued that the investigation was conducted in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without utilizing available technological means such as call detail record (CDR) analysis, mobile tracking, or Aadhaar-linked digital data. The petitioner emphasized that a colleague of his daughter had already revealed the name of a man suspected of involvement, but the police had neither interrogated him effectively nor traced his communications with the missing girl. He accused the authorities of negligence and delay, arguing that such indifference violated his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, he contended that in today’s era of digital connectivity, where Aadhaar is mandatory for bank accounts, SIM activation, and government services, verifying whether the Aadhaar of the missing person had been used recently could reveal her location or interactions. The petitioner prayed that the Court should direct the UIDAI to assist law enforcement by sharing any transactional or linkage data that could help locate his daughter.
Arguments of the Respondent (State):
The State, represented by Government Advocate S.S. Chouhan, submitted that the police had conducted a thorough investigation and continued to make efforts to trace the missing girl. It was stated that the FIR was promptly registered, witnesses were examined, and the persons allegedly involved, along with their relatives, had been interrogated. However, despite these efforts, the corpus could not be traced. The State informed the Court that a request was made to the local Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Jabalpur, to verify whether the Aadhaar number of the missing girl had been used in any linkage or transaction, such as for obtaining a SIM card or opening a bank account. However, the Seva Kendra declined to provide such information, citing a lack of legal provision for verifying Aadhaar linkages with other services. The State, therefore, requested the Court’s guidance or directions to UIDAI for facilitating such verification within the framework of law. It was also submitted that police efforts had not ceased and that they were exploring all possible leads, including examining communication records and local intelligence inputs.
Court’s Observations and Findings:
The Division Bench, after considering the submissions and perusing the records, expressed concern over the prolonged delay in tracing the missing girl and the lack of effective coordination between the investigating agencies and UIDAI. Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that Aadhaar, being a unique and biometric-based identification system, provides a single digital identity for each individual, and therefore, its usage across digital platforms could be instrumental in tracking missing persons. The Court held that since it is impossible for an individual to hold two Aadhaar cards, any activity—such as an online financial transaction, mobile connection activation, or government service utilization—linked to the Aadhaar number could provide immediate leads regarding the person’s whereabouts. The Bench remarked that in cases of missing persons, particularly when conventional methods fail, technological methods must be leveraged to trace digital footprints.
The Court noted that the police had rightly attempted to obtain Aadhaar usage data but were hindered by the Aadhaar Seva Kendra’s procedural constraints. In such a situation, the High Court found it necessary to directly involve UIDAI, which is the statutory authority responsible for maintaining Aadhaar data and overseeing its use under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The Court stated: “Since Aadhaar is unique to every individual and is connected with biometric, it is not possible for an individual to obtain a second Aadhaar Card. All bank accounts and mobile phones are to be linked with Aadhaar. The linkage of Aadhaar with mobile phone or bank account or other services can give clues to the whereabouts of the corpus.”
Emphasizing the significance of this digital trail, the Court reasoned that technological integration and institutional coordination were crucial for modern policing. It held that when an Aadhaar number is used for online verification, e-KYC, or authentication for financial or telecom services, it creates traceable digital evidence, which could help locate a missing person, especially in criminal cases involving abduction or trafficking. The Bench thus deemed it appropriate to issue notice to UIDAI, directing it to verify whether the missing girl’s Aadhaar number had been used for any online transactions, including linking to bank accounts, issuance of SIM cards, or other online activities.
The Court also directed UIDAI to share any such information with the investigating officer (IO) immediately, enabling prompt follow-up action. It stated: “The authority is directed to verify as to whether the Aadhaar number of the corpus has been used or linked for any online transaction including issuance of SIM card or opening of a bank account. Said information be shared with the Investigation Officer who shall, on receipt of the information, if any, take further steps to trace out the corpus.”
The Court fixed the next hearing for November 11, 2025, instructing the investigating agency to file an updated status report on the progress of the investigation and steps taken based on the UIDAI’s verification. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s proactive approach in integrating technology within the justice system to enhance investigative efficiency, particularly in sensitive cases involving missing persons.
Through its order, the High Court set an important precedent for law enforcement authorities across the country, emphasizing that digital identification systems like Aadhaar can and should be used responsibly to assist in humanitarian and criminal investigations. The ruling underscored that the privacy safeguards within the Aadhaar framework must not obstruct legitimate law enforcement objectives, provided such actions are carried out under judicial supervision. The decision also called for a collaborative effort between technological institutions and investigative agencies to ensure that modern tools are effectively used to serve justice and protect fundamental rights.
By taking judicial cognizance of technological possibilities, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the evolving nature of justice in the digital age — one that must embrace innovation without compromising constitutional values. The Court’s directive to UIDAI represents a balanced approach between privacy protection and the imperative of safeguarding human life, reaffirming the judiciary’s role as a guardian of both liberty and security.