Why is it in the news?

• On October 24, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar cards cannot be used as proof of age, as alternative official documents, such as the School Leaving Certificate, serve the purpose.
• This ruling raises questions about the intended use of Aadhaar, which has been described by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) as a “universal identity infrastructure.”

Context of the Ruling

• The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a case involving compensation claims for the family of Sika Ram, who died in a motorcycle accident. In April 2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Rohtak, Haryana, ordered an insurance company to pay ₹19,35,400 in compensation.
• Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA), compensation is determined based on factors such as income, age, and the number of dependents. The age of the deceased is crucial in calculating a multiplier reflecting future financial contributions based on potential earning capacity and life expectancy.
• Upon appeal, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reduced the compensation to ₹9,22,336, citing the deceased’s age as 47 according to his Aadhaar card.
• The victim’s family contested this, arguing that he was actually 45, as indicated by his School Leaving Certificate, and requested a multiplier of 14 instead.

Judicial Findings on Aadhaar’s Use

• In its 13-page ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overreach, stating it should have limited its decision to whether the tribunal’s order was “afflicted by perversity, illegality, or any other such vice.”
• The Court referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which specifies that a “matriculation or equivalent certificate” can be used as evidence to determine a person’s age.
• The judgment also included High Court rulings that mandated using School Leaving Certificates for age determination rather than Aadhaar cards. Furthermore, the Court relied on a 2018 SC ruling, where it characterized Aadhaar as “proof of identity,” alongside a UIDAI circular reiterating that Aadhaar is “not a proof of date of birth.”
• Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the multiplier of 14 for calculating compensation and awarded the family ₹15 lakh.

Evolution of Aadhaar’s Mandate

• Originally introduced by the UPA government as a unique ID for below-poverty-line families to access government schemes, Aadhaar evolved into a national initiative aimed at issuing unique IDs to all residents in India.
• The project faced initial setbacks, including disagreements between the Finance and Home Ministries and the rejection of the National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) Bill before it could be voted upon.
• However, the political landscape shifted after the BJP’s rise to power in 2016, leading to the introduction of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill as a money bill, bypassing Rajya Sabha objections.
• Following a legal challenge by Justice K S Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that Aadhaar could not be mandated for opening bank accounts, enrolling in educational institutions, or obtaining mobile SIM cards.
• Nonetheless, it upheld the requirement for linking Aadhaar with PAN cards for filing income tax returns and allowed Aadhaar to be used for verifying identities of potential beneficiaries of government social welfare schemes.
• Despite the Court’s assertion that Aadhaar registration must remain voluntary, the scope of the program has significantly expanded since its inception. Aadhaar verification is now essential for accessing various government schemes and is requested by private entities, including Amazon Pay and Aditya Birla Housing Finance.
• As of January 2024, Aadhaar became mandatory for rural workers seeking employment under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.