Thursday, November 21, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Aadhaar Not Proof of Age

As the apex court has struck down the twelve-digit unique identity number as age-proof, it brings clarity in potential legal cases involving compensation claims or matters involving age verification. The Court held that other official documents like the School Leaving Certificates can be used as proof for age

By Sanjay Raman Sinha

The Supreme Court recently held that Aadhaar cannot be used as a validating document for age verification. In the process, it overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that accepted Aadhaar as proof of age for determining compensation while ruling in a case of accident compensation. The verdict once again revisits the role of Aadhaar as a legal document for confirming age. In the judgment, the apex court held that other official documents, like the School Leaving Certificates (SLCs), can be used as proof for age. 

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan dealt with a case wherein compensation was to be determined for the family of the deceased victim Silak Ram, who died following a motorcycle accident. In April 2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Rohtak directed the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs 19,35,400. The order of MACT was challenged in the Punjab Haryana High Court and the Court reduced the compensation to Rs 9,22,336. The aggrieved party then went on to appeal in the Supreme Court.

Compensation in cases of death under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), 1988, is determined by factors which include the income and age of the deceased, as well as the number of dependants. The age is used to determine the multiplier, which is a numerical value that shows the projected income of the victim depending on his life expectancy. The High Court had reduced the compensation to Rs 9,22,336, noting that the multiplier was 13 and well under the MVA requirements and the deceased was 47 years old according to his Aadhaar card when he died. The victim’s family held that Silak Ram was actually 45 at the time of the accident according to his SLC, and the multiplier should be 14.

The questions arising for consideration were (a) in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, as in this case between the SLCs and the Aadhaar card, which is the legal proof, and (b) whether in the facts of the case, the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was justified and in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court examined the case and held that the High Court erred in undertaking the reduction in compensation. The Court held that the “general rule for appellate proceedings is that a Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption.” More importantly the apex court held that the High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhaar card of the deceased—January 1, 1969. However, the SLC records the date of birth of the deceased to be Octo­ber 7, 1970. This will affect the multiplier to be applied, the Court said. Aadhaar card cannot be used for age proof, it noted. The Court also referred to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, wherein the SLC has been accorded statutory recognition for age, and affirmed the validity of the age as provided by the SLC of the victim.

The Supreme Court came down strongly on the High Court. It said: “The High Courts cannot lose sight of the fact that compensation received by way of claims filed before MACT is either born out of injury or death of the claimant or family member of the claimants, and so, the amount awarded must do justice to them.” The top court finally allowed the appeal ordering that the total amount, i.e., Rs 14,41,500, as just compensation rounded off to Rs 15,00,000 with 8 percent interest be paid to the victim’s family. 

The Court also referred and relied on the KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2019) wherein it was noted that the purpose behind introduction of the Aadhaar scheme was “…to serve as proof of identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes.”

In the Puttaswamy case, the Constitution bench ruling held Aadhaar as proof of identity. The UIDAI circular of 2018 had also stated that Aadhaar is “not a proof of date of birth”. The circular noted: “An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se it’s not a proof of date of birth.” The Supreme Court also cited various court orders wherein the question whether the Aadhaar is sufficient proof of a person’s age, had come up for consideration. However, the Court clarified that it is not commenting on the merits of these cases, and the reference has only been made for the limited purpose of examining the suitability of the Aadhaar Card as proof of age.

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets the limit on the usage of Aadhaar for purposes beyond identification. The verdict underlines the importance of using legally accepted, trustworthy documents such as SLCs for legal record of age. This decision also has the potential to affect the usage of Aadhaar by institutions for age verification. Moreover, the verdict might impact legal cases involving compensation claims, welfare benefits, or  matters involving age authentication.

JUDGMENTS CLARIFYING AADHAAR’S EFFICACY AS AGE-PROOF

Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of MP

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age on a plea of juvenility, the age mentioned in the Aadhaar card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Shahrukh Khan vs State of MP 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy.

Navdeep Singh & Anr vs State of Punjab & Ors

In the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Aadhaar cards were not “firm proof of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in the Noor Nadia case.

Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela vs Union Of India & Anr

The Gujarat High Court directed the release of the petitioner’s pension in accordance with the date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhaar card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration.

Shabana vs NCT of Delhi

The Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhaar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth”.

spot_img

News Update