Aadhaar card not suitable as proof of date of birth: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today set aside the High Court’s decision to accept the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card to determine the age of the victim in a motor accident compensation case.

The composite bench Judges Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan was not inclined to accept the suitability of the Aadhaar Card as proof of age. The Court noted that instead of referring to the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card to determine the age of the deceased, the age of the deceased can be more authoritatively determined from the date of birth mentioned in the school leave certificate with legal recognition under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

This was the case where the compensation of Rs.19,35,400/- decided by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) was reduced to Rs.9,22,336/- by the High Court on observing that the MACT had incorrectly applied the age multiplier to the determine compensation to deceased LRs. The High Court, relying on the date of birth mentioned in the deceased Aadhar Card, calculated his age as 47 years and applied the multiplier of 13.

The appellants/legal representatives challenged the decision of the High Court, alleging that the High Court erred in referring to the Aadhar Card to calculate the age of the deceased. They referred to the deceased’s School Leave Certificate to state that his age at the time of the incident was 45 and therefore a multiplier of 14 would apply.

Finding strength in the appellant’s contention, the judgment authored by Justice Karol discussed several decisions of the High Court on whether an Aadhar Card can serve as proof of age.

Some of the decisions discussed are the following:

“In Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of MPthe MP High Court held that when it comes to establishing age, on the basis of the allegation of minority, the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be considered as conclusive proof in the light of Section 94 of the JJ Act.

In Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Orsthe Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof of age”.

In State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court made reference to UIDAI Circular no. 08 of 2023 stating that the Aadhar Card, although it can be used to establish identity, is not per se proof of date of birth.

In Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union of India and Anr.the Gujarat High Court directed the release of the petitioner’s pension as per the date mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, leaving aside the difference in the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration.

In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court recorded UIDAI’s statement that an “Aadhar card cannot be used as proof of date of birth”.

The Court also observed that the Unique Identification Authority of India, through its Circular No. 08 of 2023, has stated that an Aadhar Card, although it can be used to establish identity, is not per se a proof of date of birth.

In essence, the bench was not convinced about the suitability of Aadhar Card as proof of age.

“This being the position, as it stands with regard to the determination of age, we do not hesitate to accept the allegation of the applicants-appellants, based on the School Completion Certificate. Therefore, we did not find any error in determining the age of MACT learned based on the School Leaving Certificate.”noted the court.

By applying a multiplier of 14 and maintaining future prospects at 25% instead of the 30% set by MACT, the Court, when applying the law provided for in National Insurance Co. the judgment directed the respondents to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation to the Appellant.

“Appeals are allowed, the total amount i.e. Rs.14,41,500, in the interest of fair compensation is rounded up to Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 8% from the date of filing of the claim petition to be released to the legitimate claimants in the manner determined by the Court.”held the court.

Case title: SAROJ & ORS. VERSUS IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS., CA No. 012077 – 012078/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 837

Click here to read/download the ruling

Appearance:

For the Applicant(s) Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Ms.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv. Mr. Mr. Sunny, Adv. Mr. Satendra Singh Baghel, Adv. Mr. S Srinivasa Chary, Adv. Mr. Mrs. Mrs. Mr. Varun Mishra, AOR.