MP High Court: Aadhaar Card Not Conclusive Age Proof for Age Determination

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that an Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of age.
• Chief Justice Amit Seth observed that a postmortem report provides a more reliable indicator of age for age determination.
• The ruling occurred in the case of Rajesh Singh & Anr. v Rahul Singh & Ors., involving a motor accident claim.
• A Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had previously used an Aadhaar card to determine the deceased's age as 14, while the postmortem report indicated 13.
• The High Court enhanced compensation for the parents, favoring the medical assessment from the postmortem report.

The ruling reinforces the principle that medical evidence, such as that provided by a postmortem report, holds superior reliability when it comes to determining an individual's age.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a dispute concerning the age of a deceased individual in a motor accident claim, ultimately enhancing the compensation awarded to the parents. The case, identified as Rajesh Singh & Anr. v Rahul Singh & Ors., originated from a tragic incident in December 2019, where a young boy lost his life. Following the accident, a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially assessed the boy's age as 14 years, relying primarily on his Aadhaar card as evidence.

This initial determination by the tribunal became a point of contention. The insurance company involved in the claim presented a contrasting view, citing the postmortem report which indicated the boy was 13 years old at the time of his death. This discrepancy in age, though seemingly minor, held significant implications for the compensation calculation, leading the boy's parents to file an appeal before the High Court.

Chief Justice Amit Seth, presiding over the matter at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, critically examined the evidentiary weight of an Aadhaar card versus a postmortem report for age determination. The court found substantial merit in the insurance company's argument, which highlighted the medical assessment contained within the postmortem report. The High Court explicitly stated that an Aadhaar card, by itself, cannot serve as conclusive proof of an individual's age.

The ruling clarified that while an Aadhaar card functions primarily as an identity document, its utility does not extend to definitively establishing age in legal contexts. In contrast, the court emphasized that the age recorded in a postmortem report is derived from a medical assessment performed during the examination, lending it greater reliability. Consequently, Chief Justice Seth determined that the medical opinion presented in the postmortem report offered a more dependable foundation for ascertaining the deceased's age in the specific circumstances of this case.

This decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court carries significant implications for how age is proven in various legal proceedings, particularly within motor accident claims and other cases requiring precise age determination. The court's unequivocal stance that an Aadhaar card lacks conclusive evidentiary value for age sets a precedent, guiding tribunals and courts to seek more robust forms of proof. It underscores that while an Aadhaar card may confirm identity, it does not automatically establish age with the certainty required for legal judgments, especially when contested by medical findings.

The ruling reinforces the principle that medical evidence, such as that provided by a postmortem report, holds superior reliability when it comes to determining an individual's age. This is due to its basis in scientific assessment rather than self-declared or administrative data. Lawyers handling cases in Madhya Pradesh, especially those involving the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, should therefore prioritize medical documentation over an Aadhaar card when presenting or challenging age-related facts. This judicial preference for medically substantiated evidence, like a postmortem report, over an Aadhaar card for age determination is a crucial point for evidence strategy in such legal matters.

Lawyers handling motor accident claims or other cases requiring age determination in Madhya Pradesh should note that an Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of age; medical evidence, such as a postmortem report, will be considered more reliable. This ruling impacts evidence strategy for proving or disputing age in legal proceedings, particularly where medical assessments are available.

Source: Original reporting on court proceedings