It is prudent for Government of India or State Government to have vigil on instances of rising cases of frauds in Aadhaar enrolment, says Karnataka HC

Read Judgment: Naresh Prasad vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. 

Pankaj Bajpai

Bengaluru, October 7, 2021: The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has opined that issuance of Aadhaar card by such agencies who are not empowered can lead to distribution of such cards against the interest of national security. 

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna therefore observed that it is prudent for the Government of India or the State Government to have a vigil on such instances of rising cases of frauds in Aadhaar enrolment. 

The observation came pursuant to a plea filed by the CEO of M/s Edurays India, (a company with expertise in Aadhaar enrolment) seeking to quash a case registered against it under various provisions of the IPC. 

The background of the case was that the petitioner (Naresh Prasad) had entered into a service provider agreement on April 1, 2015 with Utility Forms Private Limited, Mumbai for providing services mentioned in the contract.

Thereafter, the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, had addressed a permission letter for onboarding Utility Forms as enrolment agency for UIDAI, particularly for the purpose of carrying out enrolment for Aadhaar in Karnataka.

In terms of the agreement entered into between Utility and the petitioner, it was the claim of the petitioner that he was providing manpower resources to Utility such as enrolment operators and supervisors.

However later, complaints were received alleging indulgence of petitioner in trade of free Aadhaar kits. Accordingly, an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, Utility’s representative and the person who entered into agreement with UIDAI for offences punishable u/s 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC. 

Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner functions strictly in terms of what was agreed between Utility and himself, and that the Aadhaar kits alleged to have been supplied for free were never supplied. 

Opposing the same, the Additional Solicitor General contended that the allegation against the petitioner was not restricted to cheating. 

The ASG also contended that the action of enrolment agency in entering into a sub-contract with the petitioner led to grave threat to national security as Aadhaar cards were recklessly issued. 

After considering the pleadings and the arguments, Justice Nagaprasanna opined that in terms of what was permitted under the Scheme introduced by the Government of India for empanelment of enrolment agencies for UID enrollment, was that the manpower such as enrolment operator and supervisor could be hired by the third parties by the enrolment agency. 

However, what enrolment agency did was to the contrary, wherein a sub-contract was entered into with the petitioner for functions beyond what was statutorily permitted and the scheme contemplated, added Justice Nagaprasanna. 

The High Court found from the perusal of ‘Namma Kendra’ options notified by the petitioner on October 1, 2016 that the petitioner indulged in trade of free kits, which undoubtedly would become an offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC. 

Therefore, it is a matter of trial that the petitioner should come out clean on justification of the notice that was issued and the collection of money that he has made under 5 options of selling the Aadhaar kit to be sold ranging from 40,000 onwards to 1,85,000 and every Aadhaar card that was being issued by Namma Kendra, a particular fee ranging from Rs.100 to Rs.200 was collected, added the Court.

The Single Bench also found that only when the official of UIDAI went as a civilian and sought an aadhaar card from Namma Kendra, he got to know the nefarious activities of the petitioner in connivance with the enrolment agency in selling aadhaar kits and aadhaar cards. 

Justice Nagaprasanna went on to note that the fact that the Project Director of UDI for the Karnataka Region had indicated the name of the petitioner to be the contact person or the State, in turn, would not lend any support to the petitioner, as the name of the agency indicated in the said document is Utility Forms Private Limited and not Edurays which belongs to the petitioner. 

Mere mentioning the name of the petitioner would not clothe him with the right to do as he has done, added Single Judge. 

Therefore, while dismissing the criminal petition, Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the present is a matter for trial, and hence directed the Trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law, on its own merit, on the basis of evidence to be lead and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.