In case of difference in dates of birth between Aadhar Card and School Leaving Certificate, later is to be taken as proof of age – SC
In a recent order involving claim under a motor accident case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between Aadhar Card and School Leaving Certificate, later is to be taken as proof of age.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4296 (2024) (10) abcaus.in SC
The instant case involved dispute regarding the amount of compensation/claim awarded to wife and sons of the deceased in a hit and run case by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
However, on the appeal of the respondent insurance company, the Hon’ble High Court reduced the amount awarded by noting that minimum wage rates issued by the Government were applicable and constituted a better measure for calculating the notional income of a deceased person. Further, High Court with respect to the age at the time of death, relied upon the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased to determine the applicable multiplier.
The claimant-appellants, aggrieved by the reduction of the claim by the High Court approached Hon’ble Supreme Court and contended that the multiplier applicable would be 14 on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the School Leave Certificate of the deceased. They were further aggrieved by the calculation of monthly income.
One of the questions for consideration was as to in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and secondly whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the learned MACT, was justified and in accordance with law.
With respect to reduction in award, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that High Court erred as the general rule insofar as appellate proceedings are concerned 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. Further, it is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned order the High Court had done.
The second aspect was the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased. However, the date of birth as per School Leaving Certificate of the deceased was different. The difference had a bearing on the multiplier to be applied.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a School Leaving Certificate has been accorded statutory recognition. Sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 JJ Act).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the Constitution Bench has held that the primary purpose of the Aadhaar is to serve as proof of identity. Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes. It was held that the whole architecture of Aadhaar is devised to give unique identity to the citizens of this country. A person can have various documents on the basis of which that individual can establish her identity. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar card as a means of identity and other documents through which identity can be established (Passport, PAN, ration card etc.). Enrolment for Aadhaar card also requires giving of demographic information as well as biometric information which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates any chance of duplication. It is for this reason the Aadhaar card is known as Unique Identification (UID).
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the question whether the Aadhar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age, has come up for consideration before some High Courts, albeit in the context of different statutes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of the JJ Act. In a similar case it was held that if the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate is not under challenge, the said document has to be given due primacy. Further, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof of age”.
Similar views have been taken by the Allahabad High Court, the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the High Court of Kerala.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that the Unique Identification Authority of India by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This
office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Gujarat High Court in view of the above circular directed the release of the petitioner’s pension in accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration.
Likewise, Division Bench of 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 “Aadhar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth.
In view of the above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that with respect to the determination of age, the School Leaving Certificate shall be authoritative. Thus, there was no error in the MACT’s determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate.
Accordingly the Hon’ble Supreme Court recalculated the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants in terms of the principles laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Non deposit of TDS by deductor – Assessee can not be denied tax credit – ITAT
- RBI urges banks to reduce number of inoperative frozen accounts enabling mobile / e-KYC
- AO whether obliged or not to decided pointwise objection u/s 148A(b) – SC admits SLP
- Addition on account of unexplained investment in construction of hotel – ITD appeal dismissed
- Transfer/Promotion in the grade of CIT / Director of Income Tax
