Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Aadhaar as Conclusive Age Proof

On 11 November 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an Aadhaar card alone is not conclusive proof of age when records conflict. In an appeal for higher compensation after a boy died in a road accident in December 2019, the court accepted the postmortem report’s assessment that he was 13.

Age evidence in the appeal

In Rajesh Singh and Another v Rahul Singh and Others, Justice Amit Seth rejected the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind’s Aadhaar-based finding that the boy was 14 years, seven months and nine days old. The insurer challenged Aadhaar as proof of age; the court gave greater evidentiary weight to the postmortem report’s medical assessment.

Compensation enhanced

The parents disputed the tribunal’s notional monthly income assessment of Rs 25,000. The High Court fixed it at Rs 7,950, based on minimum wages for an unskilled worker. Applying a multiplier of 15, deducting 50% for personal expenses and citing Divya v National Insurance Company Limited and Reshma Kumari v Madan Mohan, it assessed loss of dependency at Rs 7,15,500. It added Rs 40,000 for parental consortium to each parent, plus Rs 15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate. The award rose from Rs 5.45 lakh to Rs 8,25,500, with 6% annual interest from the original claim filing until payment.

Important Facts for Exams

• Age and birth-date status: Aadhaar is not considered proof of date of birth or age, nor of citizenship, domicile or address.
• Biometric linkage: UIDAI links the 12-digit number to demographic details and biometrics, including a photograph, ten fingerprints and two iris scans, held centrally.
• Limits on mandatory use: The Supreme Court barred requiring Aadhaar for bank accounts, mobile connections and school admissions while upholding the Act’s constitutional validity.