Madurai Bench Declares Aadhaar Correction a Fundamental Right
- The Case of a 74-Year-Old Widow from Paramakudi
- Section 31 of The Aadhaar Act places a Duty on UIDAI
- Accessibility and Infrastructure for Aadhaar Updates
- Reference to ‘The Wire’ Article and Wider Aadhaar Issues
- Fundamental Rights and Good Governance
- Directions Issued by the Court
Broader Implications of the Judgment
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in P Pushpam v. UIDAI (2025), held that citizens have both a statutory and fundamental right to correct errors in Aadhaar data. Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed UIDAI to ensure accessible correction facilities across Tamil Nadu, emphasising the link between Aadhaar and welfare entitlements. Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate, is giving detailed information....
It is entirely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled P Pushpam v. UIDAI in W.P(MD)No.29394 of 2025 that was pronounced just recently on 17.10.2025 and uploaded most recently on 30.10.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that the right to correct errors in Aadhaar data is both a statutory and fundamental right, and that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) must ensure that citizens can exercise this right without hardship. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan, made it crystal clear that the right to receive benefits through Aadhaar also carries with it the fundamental right to correct its details. Absolutely right.
Tersely put, the Bench firmly maintained that, “When the right to receive 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.” It also mandated that the UIDAI must build the necessary infrastructure to make Aadhaar correction facilities accessible. There can be just no gainsaying that the UIDAI must do the needful in this direction as directed most commendably in this leading case.
It is also worth paying attention that the Bench made the aforesaid observation while allowing a writ petition that had been filed by P Pushpam who is a 74-year-old widow from Paramakudi whose family pension was delayed because her Aadhaar card recorded her name as “Pushbam” and her date of birth incorrectly. It may be recalled that Pushpam’s husband who was an ex-serviceman and who had served the Indian Army for 21 years had passed away in May 2025. When she had applied for transfer of pension, the Defence Accounts Department refused to process it because her Aadhaar details did not match the pension records.
It merits mentioning that her repeated attempts to make corrections through e-Sevai and postal centres failed thus compelling her to move the High Court for relief. While referring to Section 31 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the Bench held that although the provision uses the word “may”, the UIDAI’s obligation becomes mandatory once it is satisfied that the information provided is accurate. The Bench while observing that, “The whole purpose of Section 31 is to ensure that one’s Aadhaar card contains the correct details” also mentioned that Aadhaar had become an indispensable identity document and that citizens could be deprived of benefits and services for want of accurate information.
It also deserves noticing that the Bench pointed out that only one Aadhaar Seva Kendra (ASK) serves all southern districts of Tamil Nadu causing hardships to citizens. While observing that elderly and vulnerable applicants often stand in long queues at the Madurai ASK, the Bench called for decentralized Aadhaar update services and local-level correction facilities. The Bench also while quoting a 2025 “The Wire” newspaper article titled “Queues, Rejections, Ambiguity: The Daily Trials of Wanting a Working Aadhaar”, the Court endorsed the recommendation to empower local centres to carry out basic updates. Simply put, the Bench observed plainly that, “Physical accessibility is the issue flagged in this petition. The facility to alter demographic information must be available at the local level.”
While noting UIDAI’s proposal to set up 28 new Aadhaar Seva Kendras in Tamil Nadu by March 2026, the Bench held that the petitioner could not wait that long. It thus directed the Madurai ASK to correct her Aadhaar details immediately on production of the order and instructed the Defence Accounts Department to transfer her pension expeditiously thereafter. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this robust, remarkable, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice GR Swaminathan of Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth things in perspective envisaging in para 1 that, “The writ petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 74 years. She was widowed recently. Her husband had served the Indian Army for 21 years. He was in receipt of army pension. Following his demise on 23.05.2025, the petitioner applied for transfer of the pension account. The petitioner’s request could not be processed on account of errors found in her Aadhaar Card. The writ petitioner’s name had been wrongly spelt as “Pushbam”. Her date of birth was erroneously entered as “25.06.1952” instead of “07.06.1952”.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 2 that, “The writ petitioner approached the E-Sevai Maiyam at Paramakudi to set right the aforesaid errors. She was directed to approach the local post office for effecting the corrections. Her efforts were in vain. Thereupon, she sent a representation to the Regional Centre, Bengaluru. Since there was no response, she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
As we see, the Bench while underscoring the importance of Aadhaar card observes in para 3 that, “Para 2 of the statement of objects and reasons of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 reads as follows :
“2.The Unique Identification Authority of India was established by a resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission vide notification number A-43011/02/2009-Admin.l, dated the 28th January, 2009. The object of the establishment of the said Authority was primarily to lay down policies and to implement the Unique Identification Scheme of the Government, by which residents of India were to be provided unique identity number. This number, when authenticated successfully, would serve as proof of identity and could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes.”
The constitutional validity of the Act was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J) v. UOI (2019) 1 SCC 1. That Aadhaar Card has become an indispensable identity document is beyond dispute. One can be deprived of various benefits and services for want of a proper Aadhaar Card.”
While elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench states in para 4 that, “The case of the petitioner is a classic instance. Her husband was an Ex-Serviceman. He was getting pension from the Indian Army. He passed away. Therefore, the family pension should have been disbursed to the petitioner from the succeeding month onwards. Though more than five months have elapsed, the transfer of pension account has not taken place. The sole reason is the discrepancy found in her Aadhaar Card.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “Though Aadhaar Card is a document of great importance, errors are bound to creep in. Recognising this reality, Section 31 of the Act provides for alteration of demographic or biometric information. The statutory provision is as follows :
31. (1) In case any demographic information of an Aadhaar number holder is found incorrect or changes subsequently, the Aadhaar number holder shall request the Authority to alter such demographic information in his record in the Central Identities Data Repository in such manner as may be specified by regulations.
(2) In case any biometric information of Aadhaar number holder is lost or changes subsequently for any reason, the Aadhaar number holder shall request the Authority to make necessary alteration in his record in the Central Identities Data Repository in such manner as may be specified by regulations.
(3) On receipt of any request under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Authority may, if it is satisfied, make such alteration as may be required in the record relating to such Aadhaar number holder and intimate such alteration to the concerned Aadhaar number holder.
(4) No identity information in the Central Identities Data Repository shall be altered except in the manner provided in this Act or regulations made in this behalf.
The information set out in the Aadhaar Card has to be necessarily correct. That is why, duty is cast on the Aadhaar number holder to request the Authority to alter the demographic information if found to be incorrect. But sub-section (3) of Section 31 reads that the Authority, if it is satisfied, may make the necessary alteration. The expression “may” normally has a discretionary connotation. But depending on the context, it can be construed as obligatory also. 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.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 7 that, “The petitioner has enclosed her husband’s pension order in the typed set of papers. The writ petitioner’s date of birth has been mentioned as “07.06.1952”. This is a document recognised by the Aadhaar Regulations. On submission of the same, the demographic information pertaining to the petitioner in her Aadhaar Card has to be appropriately amended.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “When I was about to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Madurai to accept the pension order and make the changes, quite a few members of the Bar stood up and complained that there is only one Aadhaar Seva Kendra for all the southern Districts of Tamil Nadu. The centre is located near the District Court. Quite a few recounted their personal experiences. It appears that certain changes such as correcting the details pertaining to one’s address and phone number can be done at the local level. But changes in name, date of birth and biometric information have to be done only at the Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Madurai. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this statement is correct. That there are long queues outside the said centre everyday from early morning is also a fact.”
Notably, the Bench points out in para 10 that, “Tamil Nadu is not alone. Recently, the digital magazine “The Wire” carried a long article titled “Queues, Rejections, Ambiguity : The Daily Trials of Wanting a Working Aadhaar” on 06.08.2025 on this very issue faced by the people of Jharkhand. The ambiguity surrounding the Aadhaar processes has been graphically captured in this article. The author has given the following recommendations:
“Decentralised Aadhaar update services: In light of increasing integration of Aadhaar with welfare schemes, being able to update one’s Aadhaar at the local level is imperative. Local CSCs should be given the license to facilitate basic updates, such as biometric updates and name corrections. ASKs must be the last resort for people living far away for more complex cases. Alternatively, more ASKs can be established, at least one in each district, so that the more complex cases can be resolved at the district level.
Adequate training of operators: It follows from the above recommendation that local operators must be trained rigorously and regularly. If local centres are given the license for basic updates, but the rejection rates are high, people will be pushed to visit faraway ASKs.
Establish an escalation and appeals process along with effective grievance redressal: When a certain application is rejected, one should not have to go through the entire process again. Establishing escalation and appeals would mean that rejections are further looked into and applicants informed about the steps needed to rectify their application.
Appoint one officer at the block level who takes accountability for all Aadhaar-related cases in the block. This will ensure better coordination between Aadhaar and other welfare schemes. Such an officer can suo moto set up camps or resolve Aadhaar issues within the block when a certain social welfare scheme demands it. For example, eKYC for PDS, as mentioned above, would require camps to be set up to update the biometric details of people.
Implement real-time status tracking and notifications at different stages of application verification/processing. Enrolment for a new Aadhaar takes 180 days. In such cases, real-time status tracking is useful for the citizen to understand the stage where their application gets stuck or rejected and the reason behind the rejection. Without knowing the reason, repeated applications amount to pouring water into a sieve.””
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 11 that, “The Central Government introduced the Aadhaar regime. The statute confers right on the Aadhaar number holder to seek alteration. The Authority is therefore under a correlative duty to make the changes on being satisfied that the information earlier incorporated warrants alteration. Physical accessibility is the issue that has been flagged in this writ petition. The number holder is a widow and a senior citizen. She is a resident of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram District. 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. Of course, to alter the biometric information, one’s physical presence may be required. But the facility to alter the demographic information must be available at the local level. Admittedly, there are 4056 Aadhaar enrolment centres in the State of Tamil Nadu. These centres can very well be equipped to cater to the requests for alteration of information envisaged under Section 31 of the Act.”
Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 12 that, “It is submitted by the standing counsel that UIDAI proposes to establish 28 ASK (Aadhaar Seva Kendra) across Tamil Nadu by March 2026. I earnestly hope that this proposal will fructify and each District Capital will have a centre (ASK).”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Alteration of the information in the Aadhaar Card is a statutory function discharged by the Authority. It is a form of service. Every Aadhaar number holder has the fundamental right to obtain the services set out in the Aadhaar regime. Once it is concluded that the statutory right set out in Section 31 of the Act would partake the character of a fundamental right, it becomes the duty of the Authority to put in place the requisite infrastructure and make available all facilities so that the said right can be easily exercised. As already mentioned, when a request for alteration is made, the authority has the duty to carry out the same on being satisfied that the request is well founded. Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest, When the law grants anything to anyone, it is considered to grant that without which the thing itself cannot be (the sine qua non). This maxim is applied only in the context of a provision conferring power. In other words, when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives tacitly all that is incident to it. From Broom’s Legal Maxims, one can conclude that the same principle will apply where duty is imposed. A primary obligation encompasses carrying out of incidental and ancillary duties within its fold. Duty to carry out the alteration in the Aadhaar Card carries with it the obligation to engage in capacity building so that every card holder has an easy access to the services provided by the Authority.”
Briefly stated, the Bench underscores in para 14 that, “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. Providing such facility would be a hallmark of good governance (vide Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1).”
It is instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 15 noting that, “Though the first respondent is confident that many more ASKs will be established in six months time, the petitioner cannot wait till then. She has to necessarily appear before the ASK, Madurai. Since the issue itself has been decided in this writ petition, all that the petitioner needs to do is to appear in person and produce this order copy. Thereupon, without much ado, the necessary alteration shall be carried out in the petitioner’s Aadhaar Card. Thereupon, the second respondent also shall expeditiously transfer the pension account in favour of the petitioner.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 16 that, “This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
(The author is a Meerut-based lawyer. The information and opinions expressed in this article are his own, for which he is solely responsible. This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice.)
