Hierarchy of Documents / Claim of Juvenility VI

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

A conjoint reading of Section 34 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 indicates hierarchy of documents to be accepted. No document produced was a date of birth certificate from a school or a matriculation or equivalent certificate. High Court in accepting a date of birth available out of other school records was incorrect and erroneous. Court is of opinion, result of ossification or bone test was most authentic evidence.

– Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, P. Yuvaprakash v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 1898 of 2023].

_____

In case of conflict of dates of birth between a School Leaving Certificate and an Aadhaar Card, whether an Aadhaar Card is sufficient proof of a person’s age has come up for consideration before some High Courts. Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1919 held, age mentioned in an Aadhaar Card could not be taken as conclusive proof in view of Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Punjab & Haryana High Court, in context of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Navdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 4553 held, Aadhaar Cards were not firm proof of age. Views aligning with one referred to have been taken by High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Parvati Kumari v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7085; Himachal Pradesh High Court in Kumit Kumar v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2965 and High Court of Kerala in Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 5814.

We find, Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No. 08 of 2023, has stated, an Aadhaar Card, while can be used to establish identity, is not per se proof of date of birth. See, Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3002 of 2022 and Gujarat High Court in Gopalbhai Naranbhai Vaghela v. Union Of India, R/Civil Special Application No. 16484 of 2022. Also, Delhi High Court in Shabana v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5058.

We may clarify, we have not expressed any view on merits of these cases before their respective High Courts and reference has only been made to them for examining suitability of an Aadhaar Card as proof of age.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, Saroj v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .23939-23940 of 2023] decided on 24.10.2024.  

____

Justice is nothing but a manifestation of truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth truth hidden beneath facts. Thus, Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools.

It appears, Om Prakash has undergone imprisonment for almost 25 years, during which time, society has undergone significant transformation which Om Prakash might find difficult to adjust with. We direct Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role.

– Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sundresh, Om Prakash v. Union of India, [Criminal Appeal No. 4229 of 2024] decided on 08.01.2025.

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.