The Supreme Court’s findings that Aadhaar is only a document issued by UIDAI and cannot take the place of the statutory provisions of the JJ Act were cited by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in support of its decision.

BACKGROUND 

In the matter of Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held thatAadhaar Card is not proof for identifying the age of a minor rape survivor relying on the Apex court judgement finding that the Aadhaar card issued by the independent organization UIDAI not by the GOI, therefore it can not take place the statutory provisions available in the Juvenile justice act not considered a relevant proof.

ANALYSIS OF DECISION 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act’s procedure must be taken into account by courts while assessing the age of a minor rape survivor, according to Justice Vivek Agarwal, a single judge. The bench said that the JJ Act allows for age determination to be based on a person’s birth certificate and school transcript. The bench noted that the Act allows for an ossification test to determine an individual’s age in the absence of those documents.

However, the bench cited the Supreme Court’s findings in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, where the high court ruled that the JJ Act’s statutory standards could not be overridden solely because a specific document was issued by the Government of India (GoI). Justice Agarwal stated, “Thus, in my opinion since Aadhar card is not a proof of age of the prosecutrix and her age is to be necessarily determined in terms of the JJ Act,” after citing the supreme court’s ruling”.