The Calcutta High Court has ruled that penal provisions under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. Justice Uday Kumar, while quashing criminal proceedings against Dulal Kumbhakar, held that applying the Aadhaar Act to acts committed before its enactment would violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which bars retrospective criminalisation.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a UIDAI officer on September 7, 2018, alleging that the petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar, had impersonated his brother and facilitated the generation of an Aadhaar card using his own fingerprints. It was further claimed that he attempted to fraudulently update the card's demographic details. As a result, he was charged under Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 34, 35, and 42 of the Aadhaar Act, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Rules Arbitrator Is Right Authority for Interim Relief During Arbitration
The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 1187 of 2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, contending that the Aadhaar Act was being applied retrospectively to an act that allegedly occurred on February 16, 2014, before the law came into force.
"The Aadhaar Act, 2016 does not contain any express provision that permits its retrospective application. Therefore, its application to acts committed in 2014 is impermissible and violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution," the Court held.
The petitioner stated that while assisting his disabled brother at a crowded Aadhaar enrolment centre in 2014, his fingerprints were mistakenly registered against his brother’s Aadhaar application due to staff negligence. His own attempts to get an Aadhaar card failed, prompting him to file multiple complaints and eventually a writ petition in 2018. UIDAI later acknowledged the possibility of biometric mismatches and issued him a fresh Aadhaar on May 22, 2019, cancelling the erroneous one.
The Court also found that the ingredients of the IPC and IT Act charges were not fulfilled. There was no dishonest inducement for delivery of property, which is essential for charges under Section 420 IPC, nor was there mens rea for forgery under Section 468 IPC.
Further, the Court rejected the application of IT Act provisions under Sections 66C and 66D, stating that the requisite wilful intent was missing. UIDAI’s own affidavit in the writ petition supported the petitioner’s claim that technical errors, such as uncleaned scanners, could lead to biometric mismatches.
The State’s argument that the fraud was detected in 2016 after the Aadhaar Act came into effect was also dismissed. The Court emphasised that the date of commission, not detection, is relevant for determining the applicability of criminal law.
The State and UIDAI had also raised a procedural objection, pointing to the petitioner’s earlier discharge application filed in 2020, which was not disclosed in the revision petition. The Court acknowledged the lapse but accepted the petitioner’s explanation that it occurred during the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
"While disclosure is vital, in this case, the explanation given and the substantive grounds for quashing justify the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC," the Court observed.
Concluding that continuation of proceedings would amount to a "manifest abuse of the legal process" and cause "grave injustice", the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
The initial act appears to be an innocent mix-up diligently sought to be rectified. Subjecting the petitioner to a criminal trial in such circumstances would be unjust, the judgment stated.
The Court ordered the cancellation of all related bail bonds and the return of any seized property. It also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, for necessary action.
Case Title: Dulal Kumbhakar -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number: C.R.R. 1739 of 2022
Judgment Date: 13/06/2025
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satatup Purakayastha Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty Mr. Jagriti Bhattacharya
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Bitasok Banerjee
For UIDAI (Aadhar Authority) : Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty) Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee Mr. R. R. Mohanty
