Aadhaar card is not an authoritative proof of date of birth, says Supreme Court

Last update:October 25, 2024, 18:51 IST

The high court hears an appeal brought by the family of a man who died in a road accident in 2015

The court also noted that the question of whether an Aadhaar card constitutes sufficient proof of a person’s age has been considered earlier by several high courts, albeit in relation to different legal contexts. (Representative image)

This week, the Supreme Court held that an Aadhaar does not serve as conclusive or authoritative proof of the date of birth, upholding a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order that determined the age of the deceased based on a school leaving certificate for compensation calculation.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), through a 2023 circular referring to a December 20, 2018 office memorandum of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, clarified that while an Aadhaar card can be used to establish identity, it is not per se a proof of date of birth.

While considering an appeal filed by Saroj and others, the court examined whether, in cases where discrepancies arise between two documents relating to the date of birth (as in the present case, a school leaving certificate and an Aadhaar card), Which of the two should be taken as authoritative.

“It must be noted at the outset that legal recognition has been given to a school leaving certificate,” the court said, citing sub-section (2) of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. .

The court also noted that the question of whether an Aadhaar card constitutes sufficient proof of a person’s age has been considered earlier by several high courts, albeit in relation to different legal contexts.

The court also referred to the judgment of the Constitutional Court in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) that the purpose of the Aadhaar card was to serve as proof of identity which will be unique in nature.

Citing some of the judgments of the apex court, the court noted that in Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of MP (2023), a single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing age, on the ground of youth, The age mentioned in the Aadhaar card cannot be considered as conclusive evidence in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations were made in Shahrukh Khan vs State of MP (2023) that if the authenticity of the school leaving certificate is not in question, due primacy should be given to the said document.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in cases under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, such as Navdeep Singh & Anr vs State of Punjab & Ors (2021), ruled that Aadhaar cards do not constitute “firm proof of age ”. Comparable observations were made in Noor Nadia & Anr vs State of Punjab & Ors (2021) and Muskan vs State of Punjab (2021), among others. The Supreme Court noted that similar views were also expressed by the high courts of Allahabad, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala.

Recently, the Gujarat High Court in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela vs Union of India & Anr (2024) directed that the petitioner’s pension be issued on the basis of the date of birth appearing on the school leaving certificate, without taking into account account for discrepancy in Aadhaar card. In Shabana vs NCT of Delhi (2024), a bench of the Delhi High Court, in a habeas corpus case, recorded the plea of ​​UIDAI clarifying that an Aadhaar card should not be considered proof of date of birth.

Allowing the appeal, the court said: “That being the position, as it stands with respect to determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the plaintiff-appellants, based on the school leaving certificate. Thus, we did not find any error in the determination of age by the MACT based on the school completion certificate.”

According to the facts of the case, one Silak Ram was tragically killed in a motorcycle accident on August 4, 2015 in Rohtak. In 2017, following a petition filed by his wife and children, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs 19,35,400 with interest rate of 7.5% from the date of petition of claim.

However, following an appeal in 2023, the high court reduced the compensation to Rs 9,22,336, basing the calculation on the age recorded on the deceased’s Aadhaar card.

The Aadhaar card of the deceased indicated his date of birth as 1 January 1969, while the appellants cited his school leaving certificate, which recorded his date of birth as 7 October 1970.

In this regard, the high court agreed with the opinion of MACT based on the school leaving certificate.

In another aspect, i.e. interest awarded, the court was of the view that the HC had not recorded any reason for reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%.

“Higher courts cannot lose sight of the fact that compensation received through claims lodged with MACT arises from an injury or death of the claimant or a family member of the claimants and therefore the amount awarded must do them justice . It must necessarily be fair and reasonable. From that point of view, we consider it appropriate to increase the rate of interest to 8% payable from the date of filing of the claim petition,” the court said.

The high court determined a compensation of Rs 14,41,500 rounded up to Rs 15,00,000 for the sake of fair compensation with interest at 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition to be served on the legitimate claimants in the manner indicated by the court. .