Ahmedabad: A 19-year-old boy, Jigar Jadav, was lost from his school in Dewa Village in Banaskantha in 2011.
A decade later, when the local police seek help from Indian unique identification authorities (uidai) to provide anything and every detail Available in Jadav to help track it, the Aadhaar authority quoted the person’s privacy rights – lost in this case.
In March this year, Gujarat HC directed the Banskantha police to launch an inquiry to track Jadav and ordered Uidai to work with the police to track Jadav through the Aadhaar card, if it was issued at all to him.
Reluctant to share Aadhaar information, if any, in Jadav missing, Uidai authorities told the Gujarat High Court that HC can order it to provide information only after hearing the authority and information sought.
Ironically, in this case, it is a missing person! KeDengan in the part of the Aadhaar authorities followed the law of confusing HC which directed Uidai on Wednesday to work with the police in his investigation into the disappearance of Jadav after 10 years after the Habeas Corpus petition was submitted by Jadav’s father, Nagjibhai.
Jadav has disappeared from Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar Kumar Chhatralay in Devas Village in Baneskantha.
His father panickedly asked with school and dormitory authorities and pursued this problem with high in government.
When there was no trace of his son found, he approached the High Court through Advocates Nayanavati Jethva.
After HC order, Desesa police wrote to Uidai looking for information about Jadav, if any.
In return, the authority said that it would be difficult to identify someone based on the date and name of his birth and without aadhaar numbers.
The authority then confirmed this in a written statement in the High Court and confirmed that it was not feasible to track it based on a glimpse detail.
It also citizes various provisions of court laws and orders with the right to privacy limiting detailed disclosure relating to the Aadhaar card holder.
Aadhaar’s authority was increasingly delivered that the court could command it to provide information about the Aadhaar card holder only after hearing Uidai and the person concerned.
This citizes the provisions of Part 33 (1) Uidai Law.
“It is important to say that since Jigar Kumar Nagji Bhai Jadav has reached the majority (according to the information provided by the National Police Authority), he is also required to be heard by the court together with the authority mentioned above.
Section 33 (1) of the law (as amended), if he has registered for the Aadhaar number and then allocated the same as the authority, “read written.
Meanwhile, the office of the office bans submitted his report to the investigation during the trial.
HC has posted this problem to hear more on July 26.