Aadhaar Card Correction Is Now Legal Right
A landmark ruling establishing that correcting Aadhaar details is not just a procedure, but a Fundamental Right linked to human dignity.
The Petitioner
74-year-old widow of an Ex-Serviceman. Denied pension transfer due to Name/DOB mismatch in Aadhaar.
The Conflict
UIDAI required her to travel long distances (Madurai) for corrections, citing lack of local biometric facilities.
The Ruling
Correction of Aadhaar data is a statutory right. Infrastructure must be accessible locally to ensure dignity.
The Petitioner's Journey
This section details the factual matrix of the case. Click through the timeline stages to understand the bureaucratic obstacles faced by the petitioner, which led to the court's intervention.
The Initial Discrepancy
The petitioner, a recent widow, attempted to transfer her late husband's army pension (served 21 years) to her name. The process was halted because her Aadhaar details did not match the pension order.
- Name Error: Wrongly spelt in Aadhaar.
- DOB Error: Entered as "25-06-1952" instead of the correct "07-06-1952".
- Impact: Pension transfer blocked for over 5 months.
The Infrastructure Gap
The Court strongly criticized the lack of physical accessibility for senior citizens. While UIDAI claimed biometric changes require specialized centers, the Court highlighted the massive disparity between existing specialized centers and potential capacity.
The "Madurai" Bottleneck
The Court noted anecdotal evidence of long queues at the single Aadhaar Seva Kendra in Madurai, which serves all southern districts of Tamil Nadu. Expecting a 74-year-old from Paramakudi to travel there violates the principle of accessible service.
The Section 31 Mandate
The Court pointed out that 4,056 Aadhaar enrolment centres exist in Tamil Nadu. Under Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act, these could be equipped to handle demographic and biometric updates locally, rather than centralizing power.
Legal Reasoning & Constitutional Rights
The judgment moves beyond administrative error to establish a rights-based framework. Click the cards below to explore the legal logic used by the Judge.
Service as a Right
Alteration of Aadhaar data is not a favor, but a statutory function.
The Ruling: The Court held that since Aadhaar is mandatory for benefits, the UIDAI has a "correlative duty" to facilitate changes. Every cardholder has a fundamental right to obtain these services easily.
Human Dignity
Citing K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
The Logic: The right to receive benefits has attained the status of a fundamental right based on human dignity. Since Aadhaar is the vehicle for this right, the vehicle itself must be accessible and correctable without undue hardship.
Good Governance
Citing Manoj Narula v. Union of India.
The Outcome: Providing facilities for correction is a "hallmark of good governance." The petitioner cannot be asked to wait 6 months for new centers. The state must act now to enable her rights.
The Final Verdict
- 1.
The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Aadhaar Seva Kendra, Madurai (as an immediate measure due to current constraints).
- 2.
However, Respondent 2 is directed to expeditiously transfer the pension account in favor of the petitioner immediately following the correction.
- 3.
Broader Impact: The State cannot mandate an ID (Aadhaar) for benefits without providing a convenient, local mechanism to correct errors in that ID. This establishes a precedent for accessibility.
Case Decided: 17-10-2025 | Reported: 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 9344
