Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A bench comprising of Justice SP Garg and Justice C Hari Shankar disapproved with the Madras High Court perspective stating that Aadhaar card is not capable of meeting the mandate specified in Rule 7 of the JJ Rules, as proof of age of the holder and further supporting this by adding that it doesn’t disclose the date of birth, alternatively, it discloses the age in years.
On a contrary, the Delhi High Court upheld that Aadhaar card can be contemplated as a proof of age for the impetus of Rule 7 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Rules. The court substantiated its verdict by observing that such document is attributed as a means of evidence in order to determine the age of a particular person and the Rule nowhere specifies either expressly or by unavoidable indication that the date of birth of the person should be presented as figures on the body of the aforesaid document. Therefore if the document certainly specifies the age itself, no other preferable proof would be required in order to determine the age of the person.
This issue aroused in light of an appeal filed by a man indicted of copulating a 6-year-old boy and in the course of the case court made the aforementioned observations as the speck of the case revolved around the issue of the age of the victim. The court upheld the conviction of a man and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 15 years.
Also the bench reversed the judgment rendered in Panneerselvam vs. Inspector which was delivered by a division bench of Justice V Dhanapalan and Justice G Chockalingam of Madras High Court as it opined that Aadhaar card cannot be taken as a document to prove the date of birth of the convict.
86540
103860
630
114
59824