Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 8TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30700 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SAROJINI P., AGED 61 YEARS, W/O PALCHAMI, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MRALA P O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587 BY ADVS. AMEER SALIM JITHIN BOSE NESILI NAZEER RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA STATE PROJECT OFFICE, SAANKETHIKA 2ND FLOOR, VRINDAVANAM GARDENS, POTTAKKUZHI, PATTOM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 2 DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, AKSHAYA DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P O, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603 3 SECTION OFFICER, UNIFICATION IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (UIDAI), REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR SOUTH WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, NO. 49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, PIN - 560001
SMT.MINI GOPINATH - CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be a senior citizen, says that she belongs to vulnerable section of the Society and was Field Worker in a particular Estate. She says that she has completed only schooling upto fourth standard and is illiterate for all practical purposes, and therefore, that she approached the ‘Akshaya Centre’, Thodupuzha, for updating her Adhaar Card, bearing No.345205477656; but that while doing so, the staff of the said Centre incorrectly updated her date of birth as being 01.06.1997, instead of 07.05.1962.
2. The petitioner submits that this entry is an obvious
mistake because, she is now 61 years old; but being illiterate and unable to understand the error, she came to be aware of it only on receipt of the new ‘Adhar Card’. She says that the entries in the same are causing severe prejudice to her because, going by it, she can only be construed to be 25 years in age; and that, therefore, she applied for correction of her Date of Birth in the ‘Adhar Card’ before the 3rd respondent, which has, however, been rejected through Ext.P5, saying that it can be done only once in a lifetime. She thus prays that Exts.P4 and P5 be set aside and the competent Authority be directed to reconsider her request for correction of Date of Birth, without any avoidable delay.
3. In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Ameer
Salim - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel - Smt.Mini Gopinath, submitted that Exts.P4 and P5 are irreproachable, because as per the revised ‘Adhar Guidelines’, Date of Birth can be updated only once in a lifetime. She submitted that, since the petitioner has already done so, it cannot be rectified again, except if compelling reasons are impelled and established.
4. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record.
5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner - Sri.Ameer Salim, if the Date of Birth now entered in the ‘Adhar Card’ of the petitioner is allowed to continue, she would be construed to be only 25 years old. This certainly would be severely detrimental to her life; and am, therefore, of the firm view that this Court is now adjoined to help her, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. I am persuaded to hold as afore because, I find no
reason to disbelieve the petitioner when she says that her Date of Birth was entered incorrectly by the Staff of the ‘Akshaya Centre’ she had approached, being illiterate and with no other person to help. This error committed by someone else, cannot constrain the rest of the petitioner’s life, particularly when many beneficial schemes are linked to the ‘Adhar Card’ in the present day.
7. Noticing the afore situation, I had, on 20.09.2023, issued the following interim order:
The learned Central Government Counsel will obtain specific instructions from the 3 rd respondent if the case of the petitioner can be considered as a special one and without making it a precedent, taking note of her age and the factum of she being illiterate.
8. Today, the learned Central Government Counsel
submitted that the respondents cannot take any decision to consider the petitioner’s case as an exceptional one and that therefore, left it to this Court to take a final decision.
9. As I have already said above, the prejudice that is being
indubitably caused to the petitioner, in being forced to live with an ‘Adhar Card’ showing her to be a 25 year old, can certainly be not countenanced and must be allayed. In the afore circumstances and taking note of the peculiar circumstances involved, I quash Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the 3 rd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s claim as an exceptional case, without construing it as a precedent even in analogous cases
to be presented in future; thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action for rectification of Date of Birth, in terms of law, without any avoidable delay, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is thus ordered. Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30700/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ATTESTED TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF ADMISSION REGISTER ISSUED BY THE HEAD MASTER OF A.L.P SCHOOL, ATTAYAMPATHY DATED 17.02.1984 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 22.11.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF OFFICIAL SITE OF UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2020 NUMBERED AS F-12011/WRITTEN-COMPLAINTS/2019-20/KA/HExhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.02.2021 NUMBERED AS F-12011/WRITTEN-COMPLAINTS/2019-20/KA/H-