Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Hon’ble Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Ajai Lamba and Justice Rajeev Singh heard a case filed by the girl’s mother against the boy and his family. The couple, being the petitioners in the case, claimed that they were of legally marriageable age, and had sought to quash the case filed by the girl’s mother. It is pertinent to note that the boy’s date of birth is 01.01.1997 and that of girl is 01.01.1999. The Court sought the assistance of the UIDAI on the particulars of the Aadhar card and attached the latter as a respondent in the case.
The Court accepted that, in a large number of cases, Aadhar Cards contain the date of birth as 1st January of a particular calendar year, and only in a few cases individuals have provided their date of birth. On being asked by the Court, the UIDAI responded that the details provided in the Aadhar had to be corroborated with any other valid document. If there was no such document, then the date of birth would be recorded based on the declared and approximate date of birth. In the latter case, the details are verbally communicated to the operator. After the ECMP client calculates the year of birth, the date of birth is by default entered as 1st January of a particular calendar year.
In light of the submissions made before the Court, it observed that the particulars in the Aadhar Card could not be construed as conclusive proof under the Indian Evidence Act. If a question in this aspect arose, the investigative agencies should complete the verification process. The Court said that the Aadhar Card was not conclusive proof, as the information provided by the applicant to the UIDAI was not authenticated at the time of authentication.
The Ossification test aided in ascertaining the girl's age and the results justified that her age was 17. However, the investigative officer added two years considering her bone age and said that she had acquired the age of majority. The Court adopts this practiceto deal with cases wherein the age of the complainant/applicant is disputed. Therefore, the Court was pleased to quash the case against on the ground that the girl was neither kidnapped nor abducted.
There are two other cases on a similar line. The Calcutta High Court had raised scepticism on the non-verification of the particulars in the Aadhar Card of an individual given during the enrolment process. Justice Protish Prakash observed the conduct of Aadhar enrolment process without subjecting the details of the individuals to verification as arbitrary. Therefore, the learned Judge said that the Aadhar enrolment would be incorrect if the demographic information such as the father’s name that might have been given without verification.
In another case, the Delhi High Court had disagreed with the Madras High Court’s view, which said that the Aadhar could be a proof of age under Rule 7 of the Juvenile Justice Rules. The former court said that the Aadhar had only the year of birth and not the date of birth. Hence, it could not be a proof of age.
86540
103860
630
114
59824