The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that Aadhaar is not a firm proof of age (Navdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab).Justice Amol Rattan Singh made the observation while granting a couple protection against harm or threat from relatives, after they married against the wishes of their families..The Court noted that the protection was granted without any comment as to the validity of the marriage. Therefore, it was clarified that if any of the petitioners were later found to be below marriageable age as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, this order of protection shall not be construed as a bar on proceeding against them.“Since there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhaar Cards, which is actually not a firm proof of age, if any of the petitioners 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," the order said.Recently Meghalaya High Court that asked the state not to insist on production of Aadhaar Cards as the only proof of identity since other recognised options were available to Indian citizens for this purpose.Recently, the Meghalaya High Court had asked the State not to insist on production of Aadhaar Cards as the only proof of identity since other recognised options were available to Indian citizens for this purpose..[Read Order]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that Aadhaar is not a firm proof of age (Navdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab).Justice Amol Rattan Singh made the observation while granting a couple protection against harm or threat from relatives, after they married against the wishes of their families..The Court noted that the protection was granted without any comment as to the validity of the marriage. Therefore, it was clarified that if any of the petitioners were later found to be below marriageable age as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, this order of protection shall not be construed as a bar on proceeding against them.“Since there is no firm proof of age of either of the petitioners other than their Aadhaar Cards, which is actually not a firm proof of age, if any of the petitioners 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," the order said.Recently Meghalaya High Court that asked the state not to insist on production of Aadhaar Cards as the only proof of identity since other recognised options were available to Indian citizens for this purpose.Recently, the Meghalaya High Court had asked the State not to insist on production of Aadhaar Cards as the only proof of identity since other recognised options were available to Indian citizens for this purpose..[Read Order]
