Voter ID Card/ Voter List Not Conclusive Proof Of Date Of Birth: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently held that date of birth provided in the voter list/voter ID card, even though relevant as a public document under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, is not a conclusive proof of actual date of birth.

While setting aside repudiation of an insurance claim basing upon the date of birth provided in voter ID card, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –

“It is generally accepted by Indian Courts that the date of birth recorded in the voter ID/voter list should not be relied upon to determine a person's age. This view is subscribed to by the Insurance Companies' policies, which categorize the voter ID as a non-standard proof document.”

Factual Background

The father of the petitioner (policy holder) had made three policies with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The LIC had issued bonds in the respective policies. While purchasing the policies, the policy holder had mentioned his date of birth to be 18.03.1952.

Subsequently, the policy holder died in the year 2012. The petitioner, being the nominee, claimed the insured amount from the LIC. Though she could obtain the insured amount in respect of two policies but her claim in respect of third policy was repudiated on the ground that the date of birth provided in the insurance papers did not match with the date of birth provided in the voter ID card.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Insurance Ombudsman for settlement of the dispute. However, the Ombudsman confirmed repudiation of the claim on the ground of suppression of age of the policy holder. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Odisha.

Court's Observations

After perusing the case records, the Court highlighted that out of three polices, in one policy the date of birth was recorded on the basis of voter ID card, the second one was done on the basis of school certificate and the third one was done on the basis of entry made in the previous policy.

Subsequently, when the date of birth recorded in the policy, which was in tandem with school certificate, did not match with that of the date of birth mentioned in the voter ID card, the LIC repudiated the claim of the petitioner.

Thus, the Court was of the view that the resolution of the dispute hinges upon the simple question as to what is the evidentiary value of date of birth recorded in a voter ID card or electoral rolls and whether such entries can be held as reliable proofs of actual date of birth of a person.

For answering the above question, the Court relied upon the observation made by the Supreme Court in Susil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, wherein it was held that date of birth contained in the voter list and the voter ID card are recorded as per the statement made by the person concerned and therefore, not conclusive proof of date of birth.

Reliance was further placed on Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand, wherein the Apex Court held that in the absence of evidence indicating the basis on which the entry in the voters list made, merely presenting a copy of the voters list is insufficient to establish the age. The same stance was also adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kripal alias Chirkut v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.

The Court clarified that insurers tend to favor more authoritative documents like school certificates or certified municipal records rather than voter ID card.

“While a Voter ID card is a widely recognized identification document for civic duties, it is often deemed to be non-standard proof of date of birth within the insurance industry. This preference stems from the Voter ID's primary purpose of verifying eligibility to vote rather than establishing a chronological record of one's birth,” it added.

Accordingly, the Bench was of the view that the LIC committed an error in repudiating the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that the date of birth recorded in the voter ID card of the petitioner is different from the date which was recorded in the insurance policy, which was made on the basis of school certificate.

Case Title: Tapaswini Panda v. Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Patna & Ors.

Case No: WP(C) No. 17627 of 2016

Date of Judgment: July 24, 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Debaraj Mohanty, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. J.R. Deo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 67

Click Here To Read/Download Order