Nagina Begum v. Union of India & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Nagina Begum alleged that her Aadhaar had been linked to another person’s PAN and sought delinking and linkage with her own PAN. Counsel referred to representations dated 2 February 2023, 27 May 2023 and 8 July 2024.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The petitioner accepted disposal through a direction to consider those representations. Respondents’ counsel did not oppose that course. The Court did not itself determine the correct linkage or order a completed technical correction.

Source: PDF p. 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Respondents 2 and 3 were directed to consider the three representations and pass a speaking order within four weeks from the passing of the order on 19 May 2026. The petition was disposed of.

Source: PDF p. 2

4. OUTCOME

Procedural relief requiring a reasoned administrative decision, rather than a judicial direction granting the requested delinking outright.

Source: PDF p. 2

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Match the relief to the operative direction

The prayer sought delinking and relinking, but the actual direction requires consideration and a speaking order. Publishing the prayer as the result would overstate the relief secured.

Source: PDF p. 2

Use the pronouncement date for the period

The PDF distinguishes pronouncement on 19 May from uploading on 20 May 2026. The four-week period expressly runs from passing of the order, not upload or receipt.

Source: PDF p. 2

Preserve the representation trail

The three dated representations define what respondents 2 and 3 must consider. The source does not establish their eventual decision or prove that the database mismatch has since been corrected.

Source: PDF p. 1