Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)The Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016
State Of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 27 February, 2023
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).
The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
Chandra Shekhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2021
However, there is a fundamental difference between the Aadhaar
card as a means of identity and other documents through which
identity can be established. Enrolment for Aadhaar card also requires
giving of demographic information as well as biometric information
which is in the form of iris and fingerprints. This process eliminates
any chance of duplication. ….. It is for this reason the Aadhaar card
is known as Unique Identification (UID). Such an identity is
unparalleled.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9.5 Turning back to the question of whether Aadhar Card can serve as
a proof of age, a perusal of some High Court judgments reveals that this
question has been considered on quite a few occasions in the context of
the JJ Act. Illustratively, in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P.5 a
learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when
it comes to establishing the age, on a plea of juvenility the age mentioned
in the Aadhar Card could not be taken as a conclusive proof in view of
Section 94 of the JJ Act.
Smt. Parvati Kumari And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy Home & Ors. on 9 January, 2019
Views aligning with the one referred to above have been taken by
the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati
Kumari v. State of U.P.10; the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit
Kumar v. State of H.P.11 and the High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam
v. State of Kerala12.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
13. Hence, the compensation payable to the claimant-appellants in terms of
the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi17 is
recalculated in tabulated form as under :-
Navdeep Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 6 November, 2015
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the context of
the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh & Anr.
v. State of Punjab & Ors.7 held that Aadhar Cards were not “firm proof
5
2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919
6
2023 SCC OnLine MP 2740
7
2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553
Muskan Malik And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 November, 2018
7| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 2023
of age”. Observations similar in nature were also made in Noor Nadia
& Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.8, Muskan v. State of Punjab9 as well
as several other orders/judgments, in various contexts.
Shabana Begum vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 16 August, 2016
9.8 In Shabana v. NCT of Delhi16 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.”
9.9 Here, we may clarify that we have not expressed any view on the
merits of these cases before their respective High Courts, and reference
has only been made to them for the limited purpose of examining the
suitability of the Aadhar Card as proof of age.