Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an impugned order dated 22-02-2024, which denied petitioner’s claim for benefits under the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna, 2018 due to age factor, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., held that Aadhaar Card is a document of identity, not proof of age and upheld the respondent’s decision to reject the compensation claim based on age records other than the Aadhar Card.
In the instant matter, the petitioner’s husband, who passed away due to electrocution, was reportedly over the age limit for him to be covered under the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna (64 years). The petitioner argued that the age of her deceased husband should be determined based on his Aadhaar Card, which indicates that his age is within the scheme’s eligibility criteria.
The petitioner cited Narmadi Prasad v. State of M.P.,1 where the Coordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the date of birth on the Aadhaar Card to determine eligibility. The petitioner argued for a writ of mandamus to compel authorities to grant scheme benefits based on this precedent. However, the State argued that the Aadhaar Card is not a valid document for proving age, as per various departmental circulars and precedents, including Saroj v. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3038.
The Court referred to Saroj (Supra) where the Supreme Court clarified that the Aadhar Card is not proof of age, only of identity. The Court noted that various precedents and departmental circulars consistently supported this interpretation. The Court held that since Aadhar Card is not the proof of age of holder of Aadhar Card, therefore, the respondents 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.”
“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.”
The Court acknowledged that the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna’s reliance on Aadhar Card for age verification contradicts its recognized purpose, The Court opined that the petitioner’s husband’s Aadhaar Card date of birth cannot override other age documents that show her husband’s age as exceeding the scheme limit.
The Court deemed the Coordinate Bench decision in Narmadi Prasad (Supra) as per incuriam (a decision given without considering binding precedent), as it did not consider the Aadhaar Card’s intended use solely as an identity-only proof.
The Court dismissed the petition and directed the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to issue a circular clarifying that the Aadhaar Card should only be used for identity verification, not as proof of age.
[Sunita Bai Sahu v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7201, Decided on 08-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Brijendra Swaroop Sahu, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Abhishek Singh, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents/State
1. W.P. No.21501/2023 decided on 09-07-2024
Buy Constitution of India HERE
