LI Network
Published on: January 6, 2024 at 21:30 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and relevant authorities to clarify how two Aadhar Cards bearing different dates of birth were issued to a woman, reportedly confined by her family due to her same-sex relationship.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil instructed UIDAI, the Union Ministry of Electronics and IT, and regional authorities to provide specific details regarding both Aadhar Cards, including issuance dates and supporting documents used to establish the recorded dates of birth.
Concerned about conflicting dates of birth portraying the detainee as both a minor and an adult, the bench highlighted the potential societal implications of duplicate Aadhar Cards. The Court suggested the possibility of conducting an Ossification Test to ascertain the detainee’s actual age.
The case revolves around a habeas corpus petition filed by the partner of the alleged detainee. They asserted that when they sought to live together and approached the police, the detainee was forcibly taken back by her family, with the police allegedly being uncooperative and violent towards them.
In recent proceedings, the court noted three conflicting dates of birth for the detainee: June 15, 2004 (claimed by the petitioner), August 25, 2007 (provided by the State counsel from a Primary School), and another Aadhar Card showing June 15, 2007 (issued by the detainee’s parents), suggesting the detainee was a minor.
Recognizing the complexity of the situation, the court directed various authorities to provide information on the basis for the issuance of both Aadhar Cards, emphasizing the importance of clarifying the dates of issuance and the supporting documents used to establish the dates of birth.
Moreover, the court ordered the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, to arrange for the appearance of the alleged detainee in court. The case is scheduled for further review on January 12 to delve deeper into the matter.
The petition expressed concerns that the detainee’s family might coerce her into an unwanted marriage or inflict severe physical harm if she doesn’t comply.
The court stressed the necessity of determining the detainee’s age before examining the allegations and clarified that if she’s found to be a minor, the petition’s maintainability as a Habeas Corpus would need scrutiny regarding the legal basis and capacity of the petitioner seeking the detainee’s production.
