The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant order, has held that the right of an Aadhaar card holder to seek alteration of demographic information under Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, partakes the character of a “fundamental right.”
In a recent judgment, Justice G.R. Swaminathan ruled that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is “duty bound” to correct errors in an Aadhaar card when an individual provides statutorily recognized documents supporting the change. The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a 74-year-old widow who was denied her family pension for over five months due to clerical errors in her Aadhaar card.
Background of the Case
The petition, W.P(MD)No.29394 of 2025, was filed by P. Pushpam, a 74-year-old senior citizen from Paramakudi. Her husband, who had served in the Indian Army for 21 years, passed away on May 23, 2025.
When the petitioner applied to the Office of the Defence Accounts (Pensions) (Respondent 2) for the transfer of the family pension, the request could not be processed. The judgment noted the “sole reason is the discrepancy found in her Aadhaar Card.” The petitioner’s name was erroneously spelt as “Pushbam” instead of “Pushpam,” and her date of birth was wrongly entered as “25.06.1952” instead of the correct “07.06.1952.”
The petitioner’s efforts to rectify these errors at the local E-Sevai Maiyam and the post office were in vain. A subsequent representation to the UIDAI Regional Centre in Bengaluru (Respondent 1) also went unanswered, compelling her to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Swaminathan described the petitioner’s case as a “classic instance” of the consequences of Aadhaar errors, noting that “That Aadhaar Card has become an indispensable identity document is beyond dispute.”
The Court centered its analysis on Section 31 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which allows an Aadhaar number holder to request alteration of incorrect demographic information.
Analyzing sub-section (3) of Section 31, which states the Authority “may” make alterations if satisfied, the Court held that the expression, in this context, must be “construed as obligatory.”
“I hold that the Authority is duty bound to make the corrections in the Aadhaar Card on being satisfied that the information set out therein is correct. In other words, the whole purpose of Section 31 is to ensure that one’s Aadhaar Card contains the correct details,” the judgment stated.
The Court observed that while the petitioner’s name had already been corrected, the date of birth correction was pending. It found that The Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, specifically list “pension payment order” as an acceptable document for proof of date of birth under Schedule II. The petitioner had enclosed her husband’s pension order in the typed set of papers, which clearly mentioned her date of birth as “07.06.1952.”
“This is a document recognised by the Aadhaar Regulations,” the Court found. “On submission of the same, the demographic information pertaining to the petitioner in her Aadhaar Card has to be appropriately amended.”
Right to Alteration as a Fundamental Right
The Court further addressed the “physical accessibility” issue, after the standing counsel for UIDAI submitted that the petitioner must travel to the lone Aadhaar Seva Kendra (ASK) in Madurai, which serves all southern districts. Justice Swaminathan noted anecdotal evidence from other members of the Bar about “long queues outside the said centre everyday from early morning.”
“I fail to understand as to why she must be made to come all the way to Madurai to enforce her right to alter the demographic information in her Aadhaar Card,” the Court observed, stating that the “facility to alter the demographic information must be available at the local level.”
Justice Swaminathan held that the statutory right under Section 31 is a “form of service” and that “Every Aadhaar number holder has the fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) v. UOI (2019) 1 SCC 1, which established that the right to receive welfare benefits is a fundamental right, Justice Swaminathan concluded: “When right to receive the benefits is a fundamental right and Aadhaar Card is a mandatory vehicle through which the benefit can be received, the card holder has the concomitant fundamental right to seek alteration of the demographic information in the card in terms of Section 31 of the Act.”
The Court added that providing such facilities “would be a hallmark of good governance,” citing Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition. While noting UIDAI’s proposal to establish 28 new ASKs by March 2026, the Court held that the “petitioner cannot wait till then.”
The Court directed the petitioner to appear in person at the ASK, Madurai, and produce a copy of the court’s order. It ordered that “Thereupon, without much ado, the necessary alteration shall be carried out in the petitioner’s Aadhaar Card.”
A further direction was issued to the Principal Controller, Office of the Defence Accounts (Pensions), to “expeditiously transfer the pension account in favour of the petitioner” immediately following the correction. No costs were awarded.
