Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision which had used the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card for the purpose of calculating compensation for a victim of a motor accident case [Saroj and Others v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company and Others].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan was of the view that the age of the deceased can be authoritatively determined from the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate, as opposed to the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhaar card.

It noted that date of birth mentioned in school leaving certificate has statutory recognition under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The case involved a conflict in the dates of birth between the school leaving certificate and the Aadhaar card of the victim, who died in a motor accident case, for the purpose of computing compensation.

The initial compensation of ₹19,35,400 granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to the legal representatives of the victim was reduced to ₹9,22,336 by the High Court after it noted that the MACT had incorrectly applied the age multiplier while determining compensation.

The High Court had computed the deceased's age as 47 years using the date of birth stated in his Aadhaar card, along with a multiplier of 13.

Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the deceased had moved the apex court. They argued that High Court erred in relying upon the age mentioned in Aadhaar card (47), instead of placing reliance on the age mentioned in the school leaving certificate (45).

In this regard, they had submitted that the multiplier of 14 would be applicable instead of 13.

Placing reliance on High Court judgments on the aspect of suitability of Aadhaar card as proof of age, the top court agreed with the petitioners.

It noted that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had said in a 2023 circular that an Aadhaar Card can be used to establish identity but is not per se proof of date of birth.

"We may clarify that we have not expressed any view on the merits of these cases before their respective High Courts, and reference has only been made to them for the limited purpose of examining the suitability of the Aadhar Card as proof of age. That being the position, 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," the Court observed.

It, therefore, increased the compensation to be paid to the petitioners to ₹15 lakh after applying the multiplier of 14 and keeping future prospects at 25 per cent.

Advocates Srishti Choudhary, Shefali Choudhary and Namita Choudhary appeared for Saroj and others.

Advocates Shivam Singh, Manish Kumar, Ishwar Singh, Bahuli Sharma, Shubham Janghu, Suyash Vyash, Divyansh Mishra, Amrita Jhamb, Rajiv Singh, Yoshit Jain, Ravi Shanker Jha and Gopal Singh, appeared for IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company.

Advocates Anil Hooda, Jitender Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, Sunny, Anju, Ajit Kumar Singh, Akash and Varun Mishra appeared for other respondents.

[Read Judgment]