Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Aadhaar Card Cannot Be Treated As Conclusive Proof Of Age

India’s Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an Aadhaar card is primarily an identity document and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of a person's age. It observed that the age recorded in a post-mortem report, based on medical assessment, is a more reliable indicator.

 

In an 11-page order concerning compensation awarded to the parents of a 13-year-old boy who died in a motor accident in December 2019, a single-judge Bench of the High Court at Gwalior, presided over by Justice Amit Seth, observed that an Aadhaar card could not, by itself, establish the age of its holder conclusively.

 

“An Aadhaar Card is primarily an identity document and cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of the age of its holder. On the other hand, the age recorded in the post-mortem report is based upon medical assessment conducted in the course of post-mortem examination,” the Court said.

 

“Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds the medical opinion recorded in the post-mortem report to be a more reliable basis for determining the age of the deceased. Accordingly, the age of the deceased is taken as 13 years at the time of the accident,” it added.

 

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhind, had earlier relied on the boy's Aadhaar card and determined his age as 14 years, seven months and nine days. The insurance company challenged this finding, pointing out that the post-mortem report had recorded his age as 13.

 

Finding merit in the insurance company's contention, the High Court held that the medical assessment in the post-mortem report provided a more reliable basis for determining the deceased's age than the Aadhaar card.

 

The High Court passed the order on an appeal filed by the boy's parents, who sought an enhancement of the compensation of Rs 5.45 lakh awarded by the MACT in September 2022.

 

The Court also enhanced the compensation payable to the parents, holding that they were entitled to a total of Rs 8,25,500 instead of the Rs 5,45,000 awarded by the tribunal. This represents an additional compensation of Rs 2,80,500.

 

The Court further directed that the enhanced compensation of Rs 2,80,500 would carry interest at six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition until realisation.