The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked UDIAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) and other concerned authorities to explain how two Aadhar Cards with different dates of birth have been issued in the name of a woman, allegedly detained by her family which is opposed to her same-sex relationship.
Brief Facts:
The present petition relates to the life and liberty of a girl alleged to be a minor by her parents which is disputed by the petitioner, who is relying upon a different Aadhaar card saying that Babli, the alleged detenue who is in illegal custody of her parents, is major. The case involves three different dates of birth of the alleged detenue, Babli in which one is stated by the petitioner relying on an Aadhaar card showing her to be major, the other one is certified by the principal of the detenue’s primary school produced by the state counsel and the third is presented by a different Aadhaar Card showing the date of birth of the alleged detenue, supplied by the parents, showing her to be minor. The court provided a due opportunity to hear the parties during proceedings referring to the provision of section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act 2016 which states that no order by the court under this subsection shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority (UIDAI) and the concerned Aadhaar number holder.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the alleged detenue is being meted out merciless beatings by her parents who are forcing her to get married and not allowing the alleged detenue Babli to meet the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that in compliance with the orders of the Court when the police team visited the native place of the alleged detenue Babli, there was resistance by certain co-villagers as well as her parents and did not allow Babli to come to the Court.
Observations of the Court:
The court directed that the Commissioner of Police, Panchkula shall make necessary arrangements for producing the alleged detenue in court, by following due procedure, including getting necessary permission from the concerned police station having the territorial jurisdiction, along with her parents, in court on the next date of hearing.
The court considering the complexity and sensitivity of the issue involved which pertains to not only the life and liberty of a minor girl, at large having ramifications in the society that may lead to serious consequences and to ensure that no such wrong precedent is laid, directed the Commissioner of Police as well as Ministry of Electronics and IT, Government of India, Unique Identification Authority of India, to provide details qua both the Aadhar Cards issued in the name of Babli and the basis on which these Aadhar Cards were made which shows two different dates of birth, especially the date of issuance of such Aadhar Card and the supporting material based on which date of birth has been recorded and the Aadhar Card holder.
The court stated that they will consider the desirability of conducting the Ossification Test to determine the actual age of the detenue and if the alleged detenue is found to be minor, the question of maintainability of the present petition like Habeas Corpus will be decided on the strength as to under which law and in which capacity, the petitioner is seeking production of alleged detenue and also on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The decision of the Court:
The court listed the matter on a further date.
Case Title: Kajal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. Amrita Garg
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Baljinder Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
