Case Name: Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The single bench Judge, Justice Vivek Agarwal of Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing the petition held that Aadhar Card is not a proof for presuming and determining the age of a minor rape survivor.
Justice said that the statutory provisions are available under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for determining the age of the minor and there being no provision which states to consider the Aadhar Card as a proof of age.
“Therefore, in view of the statutory provisions available and there being no provision for taking into consideration Aadhar card as a proof of age for presumption and determination of age, prescribed under the Act, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order, calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this High Court”.
Justice noted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides to rely on the birth certificates and school leaving certificates for determining the age of an individual.
The bench relied upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the case Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana in which it was held by the supreme court that the statutory rules under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be substituted simply because the documents were issued by the Government.
The bench held that “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 the JJ Act, this revision petition fails and is dismissed”.
