Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal can not determine age of deceased based on age mentioned in Adhar Card

 In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it has been stated that “An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth” (copy enclosed). {Para 4}

5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed).

6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents.

7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

Encl : As above.

(Sanjeev Yadav)

Director

Tel: 011-23478609

Email: dirl.auth-hq@uidai.net.in

(Emphasis supplied)

9.7 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above. Recently, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India & Anr.15 in view thereof directed the release of the petitioner's pension in accordance with the date as mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate, keeping aside the difference in the date of birth as mentioned in the Aadhar Card, which was not relevant for the purpose of such consideration.

9.8 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, a learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case where the petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus for her daughter, recorded a statement made for and on behalf of UIDAI that “Aadhar Card may not be used as proof of date of birth.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.23939-23940 of 2023)

SAROJ & ORS. Vs IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.

Coram: SANJAY KAROL J.,

Citation: 2024 INSC 816.

Dated:24th October, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Date of birth mentioned in the school register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined

This Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit MANU/SC/0052/1988 : (1988) Supp SCC 604 had observed that the date of birth in the register of a school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth.

14. ...The date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar's register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value.

In our opinion, the proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the Accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2276 of 2014

Decided On: 30.10.2023

Manak Chand Vs. The State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.

Author; Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1192/2023.

Print Page

Whether date of birth mentioned in ADHAR CARD is conclusive?

The learned A.G.A. has submitted that the date of birth entered in an Aadhar Card has not been conferred any conclusive status by law and, therefore, it would be appropriate that this petition be disposed off by requiring the investigating agency to determine the age of the victim and record the statement of the victim and, thereafter, take appropriate action as per law.

6. Having perused the record. We do not find any other documentary evidence on the basis of which we could hold the victim to be an adult.  It is not provided by law that the date of birth entered in an Adhaar Card would be conclusive.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24015 of 2019

Decided On: 22.11.2019

 Kishan Kumar  Vs. State of U.P. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manoj Misra and Virendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.

Print Page

Whether date of birth recorded on intimation received from hospital can be corrected?

Even Thomas Jacob (supra) declared that a correction could be made only when there is a error discernible in the recording of the date of birth and there should be cogent material available for the Registrar to be satisfied as to the error having occurred. Only then could the correction be effected. It is also pertinent that there, the correction sought was to an earlier date, than that recorded in the Register. The correction to a later date cannot be permitted, since there could be no presumption that the birth was intimated, in anticipation. This is more so since the Register is said to be maintained with pages numbered serially and the births registered, being entered in the Register chronologically, on the consecutive dates; which dispel any allegation of an error having been committed by the Registrar as to the date recorded.

12. This Court cannot issue a direction in the teeth of the registration of birth having been recorded as 14.01.1987; that too on intimation from the Hospital. The mere fact of a wrong declaration having been made in the later life of the child cannot result in upsetting the factual aspects. In that event, the remedy available is to seek correction of the subsequent declarations made. In such circumstances the prayer of the petitioner  cannot be considered.

Kerala High Court

Abdul Rahiman vs The Registrar Of Birth And Death

      Coram: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
      
           W.P(C). No.21486 of 2016-I
      
    Dated this the 11th day of August, 2016

Print Page

Whether date of birth given in gazette notification will prevail over date given in birth certificate?

It has to be further stated that a declaration suo-moto made by a person as about his date of birth or change in the date of his birth and publication thereof in the government gazette cannot be held a better evidence than the birth certificate of a person and his school record. If the best evidence in the form of Gram Panchayat Birth Certificate or the School Leaving Certificate is available, the same shall prevail over the other evidence. Further, there is no material on record to show, as to on what basis the date of birth was got changed by Respondent No. 1 and published in the government gazette. It is further not disclosed by Respondent No. 1, as to which documents were submitted by him while getting his birth date changed and whether any adjudication had taken place before effecting the change in his date of birth as notified in the government gazette. In the instant matter, since Respondent No. 1 had relied upon the birth certificate produced on record and in order to prove the said certificate had examined a witness by name Shripad Pandit, it can be presumed that the same birth certificate must have been produced by Respondent No. 1, while getting his date of birth changed and getting it published in the government gazette. However, when it has unambiguously come on record through the evidence of witness Shripad Pandit examined by Respondent No. 1 himself that according to Gram Panchayat record the date of birth of is other than 31st October, 1943, the date of birth, mentioned as 31st October, 1943 in Government Gazette cannot be accepted to be the correct date of birth of Respondent No. 1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petiton No. 721 of 2002

Decided On: 10.03.2017

Shri Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Vs.

 Janu Gajaba Zagade and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.R. Bora, J.

Citation: 2017(4) MHLJ 491

Print Page

Whether a person below 18 years of age can be appointed as government servant?

For the foregoing discussions, we answer the questions of reference, as follows:-

(i) In view of the specific provision in Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, providing the age of compulsory retirement as 60 years (now), a regular Government servant holding the post in substantive capacity, even if appointed prior to the age of 18 years, cannot be superannuated before actually attaining the age of 60 years according to his date of birth recorded in his service records, irrespective of his length of service, treating his age to be 18 years on the date of his appointment.

(ii) In absence of any provision in the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, prohibiting the appointment of a Government servant prior to the age of 18 years, the appointment of a person prior to attaining the age of 18 years, cannot be said to be against Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875.

(iii) Jharkhand Service Code, being a complete Code in itself, and Rule 73 thereof being specific and unambiguous in its terms, there is no scope of taking help of any other law or rule for drawing any inference that the intention of the Legislature was to allow only 40 years (or 42 years now) of service, as the maximum period of service, to which a Government servant can be allowed to continue in Government service. Accordingly, even if a person enters into the service prior to the age of 18 years, he shall be entitled to continue in service, until he actually attains the age of 60 years as per his date of birth recorded in his service records, which is the prescribed age of compulsory retirement from service, irrespective of his length of service.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 262 of 2011

Decided On: 08.05.2017

 The State of Jharkhand and Ors.Vs.Arun Kumar Dhar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Harish Chandra Mishra, Aparesh Kumar Singh and Dr. S.N. Pathak, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 JHARKHAND 126 (FB)

Print Page

How to ascertain age of juvenile if there are two different dates of birth in two different schools?

The question that confronts the Court is which of the two dates of birth is authentic. If 7th October, 1990 is to be accepted by the Court as the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 he would not be a juvenile. However, if the other date i.e. 10thAugust, 1993 is to be acknowledged, the respondent No. 2 would be a minor. The occurrence, as already noticed, took place on 8th April, 2010.

8. What we have before us is a situation where the person who claims to be a juvenile has two matriculation certificates. We have perused the documents in original which were required to be placed before the Court by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and the Central Board of Secondary Education in terms of the order of this Court dated 11th July, 2017.

9. We would not be wrong to proceed on the basis that the entries of date of birth in the school register(s) are made on the basis of the declaration to the said effect by the parents/guardian of the child at the time of entry of the child in the school. The earliest declaration in this regard is in the Amar Singh Children School as well as the Central Academy Senior Secondary School in whose registers the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 is recorded as 7th October, 1990. A perusal of the documents in original produced by the Central Board of Secondary Education pursuant to the order of this Court would indicate the existence of a certificate duly signed by the Principal of the said institutions that the particulars in the register including the date of birth of all the students had been brought to the notice of the parents/guardian of such students. The respondent No. 2 appeared in Class 10 examination i.e. matriculation examination from the Central Academy Senior Secondary School in the year 2005 and the date of birth certified by the CBSE is 7th October, 1990. After the respondent No. 2 failed in Class 10 examination in the year 2005 he migrated to Paniyara Inter College, Maharajganj, U.P. in the year 2005-2006 and there again on the basis of his own declaration his date of birth is recorded as 10th August, 1993. When the respondent No. 2 or his parents/guardian acting on his behalf had declared his date of birth initially as 7th October, 1990 which is recorded in the first matriculation certificate we do not see how there can be a reasonable basis for a subsequent date i.e. 10th August, 1993 to be entered in the school record of Paniyara Inter College, Maharajganj, U.P. to which school the respondent No. 2 had migrated in the year 2005-2006 after his failure in Class 10 examination of the CBSE. We are, therefore, of the view that it is the first declaration of date of birth, which is contained in the matriculation certificate issued to the respondent No. 2 by the CBSE i.e. 7th October, 1990 which should hold the field, a fact fortified by the own conduct of the said respondent No. 2 in making a declaration to obtain a PAN card stating that his date of birth is 12th March, 1985. On the basis of the aforesaid PAN card, the respondent No. 2 had, in fact, opened a bank account in the HDFC Bank at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. The said matriculation certificate coupled with the aforesaid ancillary facts lead the Court to conclude that the correct date of birth determined in accordance with the certificate contemplated under Rule 12 of the J.J. Rules so far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned is 7th October, 1990. He, therefore, was not a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the incident i.e. 8th April, 2010. Consequently, the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the J.J. Act and is liable to be tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha, JJ.)

Lok Nath Pandey.

v.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1296 of 2017

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1173 of 2015]

Decided on August 1, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1097,AIR 2017 SC 3866

Print Page

When date of birth in passport can be corrected without declaration by Magistrate?

Admittedly, in the instant case, the correction sought by
the petitioner is only with regard to the date and month wherein
she was born in the year 1996. The petitioner has produced the
proof of her correct date of birth i.e. Secondary School
Examination Certificate and PAN card. In considered opinion of
this court, the correction sought for by the petitioner is very
minor correction and it appears to be a bona fide error that her
date of birth was wrongly mentioned when she applied for the
passport and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the respondents are not justified in refusing the
correction in the date of birth, as prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to re-issue the passport after correction in the date
of birth of the petitioner as prayed for, taking the date of birth as
mentioned in her Secondary School Examination Certificate as
conclusive without insisting upon a declaratory order from First
Class Judicial Magistrate. 
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
MS SHILPI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6598/14)


Dated:- 10.8.16
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Print Page

Whether there is limitation for correction of date of birth as per registration of birth and deaths Act?

In Bailochan Karan v. Basant Kumari Naik, (1999)2 SCC 310,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the judgment in Darshan Singh’s
case (supra) to hold as under:-
“6. In the present case the maximum period of
limitation available to the appellant was only three years
from the date of his attaining majority, in other words,
cessation of the disability. This position has been
considered by this Court in Darshan Singh & Ors. v.
Gurdev Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 585. It is clearly laid down
that Section 8 is a proviso to Sections 6 or 7. A
combined effect of Sections 6 and 8 read with third
column of the appropriate article would be that a person
under disability may sue after cessation of disability
within the same period as would otherwise be allowed
from the time specified therefore in the third column of
the schedule. But such extended period would not be
beyond three years from the date of the cessation of the
disability. Consequently the right to file a suit of the
appellant got expired at the end of three years from the
date of his attaining majority, whether it was 1963 or
1966. In this case it is unnecessary for us to consider
whether the appellant attained majority in 1966 on
completion of 21 years or in 1963 on completion of 18
years as it is not relevant for the purposes of this case.
The plaintiffs, therefore, perfected their title by virtue of
Section 27 of the Limitation Act.”
[45] The right to seek actual date of birth has to be exercised within
three years of attaining the majority on the basis of the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. But, after
expiry of period of three years from the cessation of disability, no 
person can rely upon the birth certificate. He is bound by the date
given in the matriculation certificate. Therefore, in any case, the right
of a person to seek actual date of birth on the basis of entry in the
birth certificate by the Registrar of Births and Deaths is three years
after attaining the majority on the basis of date of birth in the said
certificate.
[46] We do hope that the schools within the jurisdiction of this Court
insist upon birth certificate issued from the Registrar of Births and
Deaths at the time of admission to the schools so that such date of
birth is correctly reflected in the matriculation certificate. If it is not
being followed, all schools, Government, Public and/or Private, shall
not grant admission to the child unless he produces his birth
certificate from the Registrar, Births & Deaths. Thus, the date of birth
in the school record leading to matriculation certificate would be in
sync with the date of birth from the records of the Registrar of Births
& Deaths.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
 Date of Decision: May 21, 2015
(1) LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M)

 Ambika Kaul V Central Board of Secondary Education and others 


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Print Page

Whether there is limitation for correction for date of birth in birth certificate issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths?

The right to seek actual date of birth has to be exercised within
three years of attaining the majority on the basis of the birth
certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. But, after
expiry of period of three years from the cessation of disability, no

person can rely upon the birth certificate. He is bound by the date
given in the matriculation certificate. Therefore, in any case, the right
of a person to seek actual date of birth on the basis of entry in the
birth certificate by the Registrar of Births and Deaths is three years
after attaining the majority on the basis of date of birth in the said
certificate.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: May 21, 2015

LPA No. 1613 of 2014 (O&M)
Ambika Kaul

Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education and others

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Dated;May 21, 2015

Print Page