Madras High Court Affirms Aadhaar Holders’ Right to Modify Personal Details
Madras HC upholds citizens’ fundamental right to correct Aadhaar details, linking digital identity updates to dignity, equality, and welfare access.
In a nation where Aadhaar has become the cornerstone of identity and access to public welfare, even the smallest error in its records can have profound consequences. Recognising this reality, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Pushpam v. The Director, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) & Anr., affirmed that every Aadhaar holder possesses a fundamental right to seek correction of personal details.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan declared that the right to update or rectify Aadhaar information is not merely a procedural facility but a constitutional entitlement flowing from Articles 14 and 21—the right to equality and the right to live with dignity. The Court emphasised that when Aadhaar becomes the gateway to essential benefits such as pensions, subsidies, and social welfare schemes, the State assumes a duty to ensure its accuracy, accessibility, and fairness.
This judgment not only brought relief to the petitioner—a 74-year-old widow whose pension was delayed due to clerical errors—but also underscored a broader constitutional truth: digital governance must never lose sight of the human dignity it seeks to serve.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, P. Pushpam, a 74-year-old widow and resident of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram District, approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Office of the Defence Accounts (Pensions).
Her grievance arose from discrepancies in her Aadhaar Card:
- Her name was incorrectly recorded as “Pushbam” instead of “Pushpam.”
- Her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 25.06.1952 instead of 07.06.1952.
After her husband, an ex-serviceman, passed away on 23 May 2025, she sought the transfer of his pension account. However, this request was stalled due to the errors in her Aadhaar details. Despite approaching local E-Sevai Maiyam and the post office, she was unable to get the corrections made and finally had to move to the High Court for relief.
Issues
- Whether the UIDAI have a statutory duty to correct demographic details in the Aadhaar database when an Aadhaar holder provides valid proof?
- Whether the right to seek correction of Aadhaar details constitutes a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
- Whether the restriction of correction facilities to a few Aadhaar Seva Kendras (ASKs) is consistent with constitutional principles of accessibility and dignity?
Statutory Framework: Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016
Justice Swaminathan began his analysis by referring to Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act, which explicitly allows Aadhaar holders to request changes in their demographic or biometric information:
“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 information…”
The Court noted that the phrase “may, if it is satisfied, make such alteration” does not merely confer discretion on UIDAI but imposes a duty to correct entries once the request is substantiated. The judge observed that the purpose of Section 31 is to ensure that each Aadhaar record reflects accurate information, which is essential for an individual’s access to entitlements.
Regulatory Mechanism: Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016
The Court referred to the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, especially Chapter IV and Schedule II, which list acceptable documents for demographic updates. For proof of date of birth, acceptable documents include:
- Valid Indian Passport
- Service Photo Identity Card issued by Government or PSU
- Pensioner Photo Identity Card or Pension Payment Order
Since the petitioner’s Pension Payment Order (PPO) recorded her date of birth as 07.06.1952, the Court held that it was a valid document under the Regulations and therefore binding upon UIDAI for correction.
Analysis: From Statutory Duty to Fundamental Right
1. Right to Correction as a Corollary of the Right to Identity
Justice Swaminathan reasoned that while the Aadhaar Act provides a statutory framework, its implementation cannot violate the fundamental right to identity and dignity. He observed that identity proof is indispensable for availing government services and welfare benefits. Therefore, errors in Aadhaar data have real and severe consequences, such as denial of pension or subsidies.
2. Constitutional Context: Articles 14 and 21
By invoking Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), the Court elevated the statutory right under Section 31 to a fundamental right. Once the State mandates Aadhaar as the gateway to access welfare schemes, the corresponding obligation to maintain accuracy and facilitate updates becomes constitutionally enforceable.
Justice Swaminathan stated:
“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 partakes the character of a fundamental right, it becomes the duty of the Authority to put in place requisite infrastructure.”
Accessibility and Governance: Court’s Observations on Systemic Barriers
A significant part of the judgment addresses the logistical hardships faced by citizens—especially senior citizens and rural residents—in accessing correction facilities.
Lack of Local Access
The petitioner was asked to appear in person at the Aadhaar Seva Kendra (ASK), Madurai, despite residing nearly 120 km away. The Court noted that Tamil Nadu had only one functional ASK serving multiple southern districts, leading to long queues and delays.
The judge acknowledged anecdotal evidence from lawyers who faced similar challenges and cited a 2025 article in The Wire, “Queues, Rejections, Ambiguity: The Daily Trials of Wanting a Working Aadhaar,” highlighting identical issues in Jharkhand. The article recommended decentralisation, better training of operators, and grievance redressal mechanisms—all of which the Court endorsed.
Judicial Recommendation for Decentralisation
Justice Swaminathan directed UIDAI to establish more ASKs across Tamil Nadu and equip existing 4056 Aadhaar enrolment centers to handle demographic updates. The Court observed:
“The facility to alter the demographic information must be available at the local level… These centres can very well be equipped to cater to the requests for alteration of information envisaged under Section 31.”
He also recorded UIDAI’s assurance that 28 new ASKs were planned across Tamil Nadu by March 2026.
Conclusion
Madras High Court’s judgment in P. Pushpam v. UIDAI & Anr. is a significant contribution to the jurisprudence of digital rights and constitutional governance. It bridges the gap between statutory entitlement and fundamental rights, affirming that citizens’ access to welfare, pensions, and identity corrections cannot be hindered by administrative inertia.
Justice Swaminathan’s reasoning underscores a vital principle:
The dignity of the individual is not served by technology alone, but by the State’s commitment to make that technology humane, inclusive, and accessible.
By recognising the right to modify Aadhaar details as an extension of the right to identity and dignity, this judgment sets a progressive precedent for balancing digital governance with constitutional compassion.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
