Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of age, postmortem report more reliable: High Court

In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an Aadhaar card cannot be considered conclusive and decisive proof of a person's age. According to a report by News18, the court observed that when discrepancies are found between an Aadhaar card and a postmortem report regarding age, a postmortem report prepared based on medical examination provides a more reliable and accurate basis for determining age. This legal observation was made by Justice Amit Seth during the hearing of an appeal filed by the parents of a 13-year-old teenager who died in a road accident in December 2019, seeking an increase in compensation.

The entire dispute originated from the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) located in Bhind. The tribunal had determined the age of the deceased teenager to be 14 years, 7 months, and 9 days based on his Aadhaar card. However, the insurance company challenged this decision in the High Court. The insurance company argued that an Aadhaar card is primarily an identity document and is not conclusive proof to establish age. The company emphasized that the postmortem report showed the teenager's age as 13 years, which should be considered more authoritative as it is based on medical assessment.

In the case of Rajesh Singh and others vs. Rahul Singh and others, the High Court accepted the arguments of the insurance company. Justice Amit Seth noted that the age recorded based on the medical examination conducted during the postmortem should be given more evidentiary importance in the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the court upheld the age of 13 years as per the postmortem report instead of the age of over 14 years determined based on the Aadhaar card. This difference in age had a direct impact on the calculation of compensation.

Other disputes also arose regarding the matter of compensation. The insurance company objected to the multiplier of 18 applied by the tribunal and argued that a multiplier of 15 would be appropriate for a child under 15 years of age. On the other hand, the parents of the deceased sought an increase in compensation and claimed that the tribunal had wrongly assessed the hypothetical monthly income of the deceased. The parents had demanded a monthly income of ₹25,000. However, the High Court rejected this demand and determined the deceased's hypothetical monthly income to be ₹7,950, based on the minimum wages for unskilled workers.

Taking all these aspects into account, the High Court increased the compensation amount payable to the parents of the deceased to ₹8,25,500. An order has also been passed to pay annual interest at the rate of 6% on this amount. The court's decision clarifies that there are limitations to using an Aadhaar card as proof of age in legal and compensation cases, and medical documents will be given greater priority.

Aadhaar is a unique identification number issued by the Government of India, managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). It primarily stores the demographic and biometric information of residents. In the past, various courts have also adopted a cautious approach regarding the acceptance of Aadhaar cards as proof of date of birth, as they are often based on self-declared information.