On October 24, the Supreme Court ruled that other official documents, such the School Leaving Certificate, can be used as proof of age and that Aadhaar cards cannot. The decision has sparked debate about the rationale behind Aadhaar, which the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which is in charge of assigning Aadhaar numbers, has referred to as a Universal identity infrastructure.
Reason behind the court’s Decision
- Proof of age is necessary in order to receive compensation for a car accident.
- A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Karol and Ujjal Bhuyan was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation to be given to the family of Sika Ram, who perished in a motorcycle accident.
- The insurance firm was ordered by the Rohtak, Haryana Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in April 2015 to provide Rs 1935,400 in compensation.
- According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), compensation in death situations is based on a number of parameters, such as the deceased’s age and income as well as the number of dependents.
- Based on the deceased’s potential earning ability and life expectancy, the multiplier a numerical figure that represents future financial contributions from the deceased to the dependents is calculated using the age.
Under the Juvenile Justice Act High Court decisions demonstrate that Aadhaar is not proof of age
- The Supreme Court said in a 13-page ruling that the High Court had overreached itself and should have just determined if the tribunal order was afflicted by perversity, illegality, etc. which may compromise it beyond redemption.
- In its ruling, the Supreme Court cited Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which stipulates that the age of an individual brought before a Board or Committee under the Act may be ascertained using the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board.
- High Court rulings requiring the use of the School Leaving Certificate rather than the Aadhaar card to determine an individual’s age served as a supplement to this.
- Additionally, it cited a UIDAI circular affirming that Aadhaar is “not a proof of date of birth” and the 2018 SC Constitutional Bench decision in which Justice Dr. A K Sikri referred to Aadhaar as “proof of identity.”
- As a result, the Supreme Court granted the family Rs 15 lakh and maintained a multiplier of 14 to determine the compensation based on the age on the School Leaving Certificate.
Mandate of Aadhaar has grown over time
The UPA government first proposed Aadhaar as a “unique ID (UID) for below-poverty-line families” to gain access to government programs. Later, it was proposed as a nationwide initiative to register and provide unique IDs to all Indian citizens. The effort was unsuccessful due to conflicts between the Home Ministry and the Finance Ministry, which at the time was in charge of the UIDAI.
Before it could be put to a vote, the National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) Bill was also turned down. The BJP opposed the Aadhaar initiative in the lead-up to the 2014 parliamentary election, raising concerns about the database’s security and the expansion of benefits to illegal immigrants.