Supreme Court: Aadhaar Card Not Sufficient as Proof of Age in Compensation Cases

By Legal Wires 7 Minutes Read

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Aadhaar Card cannot be considered valid proof for determining the date of birth in legal cases, particularly in matters involving motor accident compensation. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that more authoritative documents, like a School Leaving Certificate, should be used instead, as per the statutory recognition under Section 94of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Background

• The ruling stems from an appeal challenging a High Court judgment that had accepted the Aadhaar Card as proof of the victim’s age in a motor accident compensation case.
• The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) had originally awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,35,400, which was later reduced to Rs. 9,22,336 by the High Court, after it adjusted the age multiplier based on the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar Card.
• The appellants, representing the deceased, argued that the deceased’s age should be based on the School Leaving Certificate, which indicated he was 45 years old at the time of the accident. This would require applying a multiplier of 14 instead of 13, leading to a higher compensation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Supreme Court discussed several High Court decisions that clarified the non-suitability of the Aadhaar Cardas proof of date of birth:
  • In Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P., the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Aadhaar Card cannot conclusively establish age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
  • In Navdeep Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors, the Punjab & Haryana High Court stated that Aadhaar Cards are not firm proof of age.
  • In State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India & Ors, the Bombay High Court referenced a UIDAI Circular (No. 08 of 2023), asserting that while the Aadhaar Card can verify identity, it is not sufficient to establish date of birth.
  • In Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union of India & Anr, the Gujarat High Court prioritized the School Leaving Certificate over the Aadhaar Card for determining pension eligibility.
  • In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court acknowledged that UIDAI clarified that Aadhaar is not suitable proof of date of birth.
• Based on these precedents, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellants’ stance that the School Leaving Certificate should be the basis for determining the deceased’s age. The judgment clarified that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act supports the use of school records as more credible evidence.

Judgment and Compensation

• The bench, agreeing with the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal’s original decision, held that the deceased’s age was 45 years at the time of the accident, warranting a multiplier of 14.
• The Court adjusted the total compensation to Rs. 15,00,000, including future prospects set at 25%, in line with the legal principles established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).
• The Court concluded: “The appeals are allowed, the total amount of Rs. 14,41,500 is rounded off to Rs. 15,00,000, with 8% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, to be released to the rightful claimants as directed by the Tribunal.”

Legal Implications

• The decision reinforces that Aadhaar Cards are insufficient for verifying age in legal matters, especially in compensation cases.
• It upholds the principle that legal determinations of age should rely on documents with statutory recognition, ensuring accuracy and fairness in judicial proceedings.

Representation

• For Petitioners: Ms. Srishti Choudhary, Adv., Ms. Shefali Choudhary, Adv., Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR.
• For Respondents: Mr. Suyash Vyas, Adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR, Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv., Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sunny, Adv., Mr. Satendra Singh Baghel, Adv., Mr. S. Srinivasa Chary, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv., Ms. Parul Priya, Adv., Ms. Anupama Singh, Adv., Mr. Varun Mishra, AOR.

Click to read: SAROJ & ORS. VERSUS IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS., C.A. No. 012077 – 012078 / 2024

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires