Aadhar not proof of age as no documentary proof is usually asked for at time of applying/issuance for same:P&H HC

Read Order: Pooja Rani @ Nahida and another v. State of Haryana and others  

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 12, 2021: While considering a Protection Plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that Aadhar Cards, are actually no proof of age, as no documentary proof is usually asked for at the time of applying for the Aadhar card or the issuance thereof.

The Bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh also mentioned that protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right of every citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petition in question,  which was filed by the petitioners,  sought protection of life and liberty at the hands of private respondents, as they wanted to marry each other (as contended) against the wishes of the said respondents.

On a specific query put to the counsel for the petitioners, it was stated that petitioners were not in any prohibited relationship to each other and the counsel had obtained specific instructions from the petitioners in that regard.

Without making any comment whatsoever on the merits of the case, or otherwise, the Bench disposed of  the petition with a direction to the official respondents, to ensure that the lives and liberty of the petitioners are not put to any harm or threat at the hands of the aforesaid respondents, or at their behest.

“There is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhar Cards, which is actually no proof of age, as no documentary proof is usually asked for at the time of applying for the Aadhar card or the issuance thereof”, added the Bench.

It had been specifically mentioned that the age of petitioners is 20 years and 35 years old in the petition, but the Court clarified that there was no actual documentary proof in support thereof.

The Bench, also, went on to add that if, upon verification of the age of the petitioners, they are found to be below the marriageable age in terms of the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on any proceedings initiated under that Act, the offences committed under that Act being cognizable in terms of Section 15 thereof.

The Bench concluded this matter by stating if any of the averments made in the petition is found to be incorrect, specifically with regard to either the petitioners being in any prohibited relationship to each other, or as regards their previous marital status, this order shall not be construed to be a bar on proceedings initiated as per law.