PIO: UIDAI does not maintain any information about authentication; Role of UIDAI is limited to issue of Aadhar numbers and the delivery is to be determined by the implementing agencies - CIC: It is in the nature of a clarification and not covered u/s 2(f)

Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information/documents:

1. Whether any Aadhaar based KYC had been performed against his Aadhaar number 78********07 on 15/12/2020?

2. If yes, then provide details of the entity who logged in for the request, mode by which Aadhaar authentication was done i.e. through OTP or Biometric device/machine, location and city from which the said request had been made.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he has asked for the data which is available with UIDAI as it is kept for audit purposes. He also admitted that the data is kept for only six months.

The CPIO vide written submissions dated 14.03.2023 submitted that the authentication transaction history can be downloaded by the resident from the website. On a query, the CPIO’s representative submitted that a copy of the written submissions was sent to the appellant through e-mail. He also submitted that as per regulation 27, the data is kept for six months and thereafter the same is auto-deleted.

Observations:

The CPIO had suitably replied that the role of UIDAI is limited to issue of Aadhar numbers and the delivery is to be determined by the implementing agencies. He also submitted that UIDAI does not maintain any information about authentication. The FAA also concurred with the CPIO’s reply. The Commission finds the reply of the CPIO just and proper. The information sought is anyway in the nature of a clarification and not covered u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In view of the above observations and based on the written submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no ground for any further action.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ghanshyam Tiwari v. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), File no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/612109; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023