The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar cannot be used as proof of date of birth (DoB) or proof of age and for determination of age in a motor accident claim, and the school leaving certificate having a statutory recognition is valid and acceptable proof. Even UIDAI (unique identification authority of India) asked all those concerned to delete the use of Aadhaar as proof of DoB from the list of acceptable documents. Yet, several service-providers, including banks, insurers and mobile operators, insist on 'mandatory' Aadhaar as proof of DoB, ID and residential address.
While hearing a case, the bench perused several judgements passed by various high courts to determine whether Aadhaar is sufficient proof of a person's age. While allowing the appeal, the bench of justice Sanjay Karol and justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed to release Rs15 lakh with 8% interest per annum (pa) to the rightful claimants in the manner directed by the motor accidents claim tribunal (MACT).
"On another aspect, i.e., the interest awarded, we find there to be no reason recorded by the High Court in the reduction of the rate of interest from 7.5% to 6%. 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. It necessarily has to be just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, we find it fit to enhance the rate of interest to 8% to be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition," the bench says.
The case is related to the death of Silak Ram in a road accident and the claim petition filed by his wife and sons before the Rohtak MCAT. In its order on 26 April 2017, the MCAT directed IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co to deposit Rs19.35 lakh with an interest of 7.5%pa in the account of Mr Ram's wife. For the sons, the tribunal directed to deposit Rs6 lakh each in a fixed deposit till the age of majority.
Hearing an appeal filed by IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co, the HC reduced the award amount to Rs9.22 lakh. Further, it observed that with respect to the age of Mr Ram at the time of death, his Aadhaar records his date of birth as 1 January 1969, thus, his age comes to 47 years and the multiplier applicable would be 13.
Aggrieved by the reduction in claim amount, Mr Ram's wife and sons approached the apex court. They contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14 since, in the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of Mr Ram is shown as 7 October 1970 and this age, then at the time of the accident, was 45 years.
The high court relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhaar of Mr Ram, i.e., 1 January 1969. The SC pointed out that at the outset a school leaving certificate has been accorded statutory recognition under sub-Section (2) of section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The apex court also noted that several high courts have considered the question of whether Aadhaar can serve as proof of age. in Manoj Kumar Yadav vs state of Madhya Pradesh (MP), a single judge of the MP High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility, the age mentioned in the Aadhaar could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of section 94 of the JJ Act. Similar observations have been made in Shahrukh Khan vs state of MP, holding that if the genuineness of the school leaving certificate is not challenged, the document has to be given due primacy.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh vs state of Punjab held that Aadhaar is not 'firm proof of age'. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia vs state of Punjab, Muskan vs state of Punjab, and several other orders and judgments in various contexts.
Further, the SC says, "We find that UIDAI, by way of its circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an office memorandum (OM) issued by the Union ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) dated 20 December 2018, that an Aadhaar, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth."
"...as it stands with respect to the determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the claimant-appellants, based on the school leaving certificate. Thus, we find no error in the learned MACT's determination of age based on the school leaving certificate," it added.
(SLP(C) Nos23939-40 of 2023 Date: 24 October 2024)
You may also want to read…
Not an ID , is an ID; not a proof , is a proof ; not a card - is just a number, is a card with a number ( UIDAI is now selling UID PVC cards); no need to provide UID - just provide masked virtual id, no masked virtual id has many more digits than the UID so it cannot be input for OTP purposes so you have to provide UID.
Even local goods transport companies and courier companies demand to see “Aadhaar” ! It may not be long before the kirana dukhaan, sabzi wala, macchi wala, newspaper wala, bus conductor, train TC all begin demanding to see “Aadhaar”: to prove that you are not a robot!
It doesn’t matter what Memos are issued , what Court orders are issued. The fact at the ground level is very different. UID has replaced the ubiquitous ir –‘Ration’ -al card, which was an all inclusive proof of all proofs.
The most brainwashed are the latest generation of office workers; who - during their school and college days - were forced to apply for and provide UID for admissions, certificates and jobs. Present day students are being forced to apply for Apaar(an id wrapped within an id wrapped within an id....). They are growing up in a world of “...-aaar” ya "paar". They sense nothing amiss. This brainwashing is akin to some of the brainwashed still continuing to wear dust-masks assuming that it will protect them from breathing in air-borne microscopic virii.