'Rising Frauds In Aadhaar Enrollment': Karnataka High Court Asks Centre, State To Keep Vigil

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Naresh Kumar R.P. while observing,

"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 Court however refrained from making any further observation on the merit of the matter as that would be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner in his defence before the trial Court.

The petitioner had sought to quash the FIR registered against him in April 2017, under Sections 465 (forgery), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (Forgery for purpose of harming reputation), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 420 (Cheating), 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy) r/w 34 of IPC.

Case Background:

The petitioner-accused is the CEO of M/s Edurays India, a claiming to have expertise in Aadhaar enrolment. It had entered into a service provider agreement in April 2015 with one Utility Forms Private Limited, on boarding Utility as enrolment agency for UIDAI, particularly for the purpose of carrying out enrolments for Aadhaar in Karnataka.

In April 2017, a FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for sub-letting the process of enrolment. It is the prosecution's case that n terms of the scheme for empanelment of enrolment of agency what was permitted to the enrolment agency was to enter into an agreement with the petitioner and the like, only for securing manpower and not to sublet the job of issuance of Aadhaar card. 

ASG H.Shanthi Bhushan argued that the action of enrolment agency in entering into a sub-contract with the petitioner has led to grave threat to national security as Aadhaar cards are recklessly issued to many who are also from neighboring countries. He concluded by saying that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial as the investigation itself is not yet commenced in the case on hand.

Advocate Murthy D Naik appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner functions strictly in terms of what was agreed between the Utility and himself. There is no substance in the allegations made particularly for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is opposed to the process of law.

Findings:

The court relied on the statutory provisions under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

It said, "The Government has notified regulations namely, Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016. Chapter V deals with the appointment of Registrars, Enrolling agencies and other service providers. Regulation 21 deals with the appointment of Registrars. 21(7) mandates that the Registrars shall not permit subcontracting of enrolment functions by enrolling agencies to third parties. The Registrars are only permitted field level manpower to be hired through third parties provided the Enrolling agencies would furnish all details."

The court opined,

"In terms of what was permitted under the Scheme was the manpower such as enrolment operator and supervisor could be hired by the third parties by the enrolment agency. What enrolment agency (Utility Forms Private Limited) did was to the contrary, sub-contract was entered into with the petitioner for functions beyond what was statutorily permitted and the scheme contemplated."

It added, "Therefore, it is a matter of trial that the petitioner should come out clean on the justification of the afore- extracted 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."

The court also considered the Office Memorandum, issued by the Government of India, drawing attention towards comprehensive guidelines issued by UIDAI, in the wake of rising cases of charging money for Aadhaar enrolment and zero tolerance should be taken by the Government.

It said, "Therefore, with the facts being so glaring and the offence alleged against the petitioner having such ramification, as issuance of Aadhaar cards by such agencies who are not empowered can also lead to the distribution of such cards against the interest of national security. 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 enrollment."

Case Title: Naresh Kumar R.P. v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No.3683 Of 2017

Date Of Order: September 30, 2021.

Appearance: Advocate Murthy D.Naik For Petitioner; Advocate Namitha Mahesh B.G, For R1; Assistant Solicitor General H.Shanthi Bhushan, For R2.