Aadhar Card Not Proof Of Age, But An Identity Document: Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates, Directs State To Clarify To All Concerned Authorities

While reiterating that Aadhar cards cannot be relied upon as a proof of its holder's age, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the state government to clarify to all concerned authorities that the Aadhar Card is merely an identity document. 

In doing so the high court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saroj and Others Vs. IFFCOTOKIO General Insurance Company and Others (2024) which held that the Aadhar Card is not the document of age. The matter before the high court pertained to use of Aadhaar card as a definitive proof of age to claim benefits under the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna.

A single judge bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia stated that not only the Supreme court but also the High Courts and even circulars issued by various government Departments have clarified that Aadhar card is not the proof of age. 

“...Similarly, different High Courts including the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in different cases have held that Aadhar Card is not a document of age," it added. 

It thereafter said, "Let a copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh for issuing notices to all the concerned authorities with regard to the legal sanctity of Aadhar Card thereby clarifying that Aadhar Card is not the document of age but it is merely a document of identity". 

In this case, the petitioner Sunita Sahu, applied for Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna, 2018 after her husband's death due to electrocution. Her claim was denied since her husband's age exceeded the scheme's age limit which is 64 years as per the official records. The petitioner contended that her husband's age should be determined based on the date of birth mentioned on his Aadhar card, which if accepted would qualify her to benefit from the scheme.

The court observed that the Panchayat in Narsinghpur district did not commit any mistake by holding that the age of deceased husband of petitioner was more than 64 and hence not eligible for the benefits. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before SDO, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur against order February 22 and it is pending therefore the court asked that the, Appellate Authority may be directed regarding the same as well.

The court had asked the petitioner's counsel to address that if the State government has formulated a scheme considering aadhar card as a document of age and can that scheme be given precedence over the Supreme Court's judgement.

“It was fairly conceded that the scheme, which is an executive instruction cannot prevail over the judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court… The UIDAI by its circular No.08/2023 has clarified that Aadhar Card can be used to establish identity. It is not per se proof of date of birth," it noted. 

It further observed that the provisions of the Yojna made it clear that age of deceased labourer would be considered on the basis of date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card, is contrary to very purpose of Aadhar Card and therefore, it cannot be approved.

"Be that whatever it may be. But one thing is clear that since Aadhar Card is not the proof of age of holder of Aadhar Card, therefore, Janpad Panchayat Babai Chichali, District Narsinghpur did not commit any mistake by holding that on the basis of all other relevant documents, the age of deceased husband of petitioner was more than 64 years and has rightly ignored the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased," the high court said. 

The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that since she has also filed an appeal before SDO, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur against the February order and the same is pending therefore the Appellate Authority may be directed to decide the same. 

“this Court has already held that Aadhar Card is not the document of age and it is a document of identity (Biometric, IRIS), then no useful purpose would served by directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal thereby giving an opportunity to take a different view specifically when the judgment passed by this Court is binding on all the tribunals functioning within the State of Madhya Pradesh," it said while dismissing the petition. 

Before parting the high court called for circulation of its order to all Collectors within the State so that they may circulate to all the authorities functioning under them. 

Case title: Smt. Sunita Bai Sahu Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 32191 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 295

Click Here To Read/Download Order