Penal Provisions Of Aadhaar Act Can't Be Applied Retrospectively In Absence Of Express Provision Due To Bar Under Article 20(1): Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar has held that a close reading of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, reveals no provision allowing retrospective application. When there is no provision expressly making the Act retrospective in nature, applying it to the acts committed before the Act came into force would violate Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. The State's reliance on the detection in 2016 that is after the Act came into force of the alleged offence is misplaced, as the relevant date is the commission of the act, not its discovery. Accepting otherwise would undermine the constitutional bar on retrospective criminalization.
Brief Facts:
The present revision application has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is charged under sections 419, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sections 34, 35 and 42 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.
The petition stated that the proceedings are factually baseless and legally unsustainable, amounting to an abuse of process.
This case emerges from the complaint which was filed on September 7, 2018 by an officer of the UIDAI in which it was alleged that the petitioner impersonated his brother and willingly allowed his signatures to be used to generate the Aadhaar Card, and later attempted to fraudulently update its details. A charge sheet was filed, but more serious charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.
Contentions:
The petitioner submitted that the penal provisions of the Aadhaar Act cannot be applied retrospectively to punish the petitioner who committed an act before the Act came into force as it would violate Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution.There are absence of essentials for offences under Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the IPC, particularly lack of property delivery and mens rea.
It was further submitted that the inapplicability of Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act due to the absence of wilful intent, supported by UIDAI's own admissions and the petitioner's explanation of an inadvertent mix-up.The assertion that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process, devoid of criminal intent.
Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner's consistent efforts since 2015 to rectify the issue, including multiple complaints, enrolment attempts, and a writ petition, culminating in the correction and issuance of his legitimate Aadhaar, proving the error was rectifiable, not criminal. A response to the procedural objection regarding an earlier discharge plea, citing the constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The prosecution submitted that the fraud was detected in 2016, post-Aadhaar Act enforcement, thus negating the claim of retrospectivity. It also raised a procedural objection over the petitioner's alleged suppression of a prior discharge application, citing Raju Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur to seek dismissal. UIDAI's affidavit confirming de-duplication was cited as proof of impersonation, contending that later administrative correction does not erase the original offence.
Observations:
The Court noted that in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Supreme Court outlined circumstances where quashing of criminal proceedings is justified, including cases where the FIR, even if fully accepted, does not disclose a prima facie offence or where the proceedings are clearly mala fide or malicious. While this power must not suppress genuine prosecutions, it exists to prevent abuse of the judicial process and to avert serious injustice.
It further observed that a close reading of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, reveals no express provision for retrospective application. In the absence of such a mandate, applying the Act to an act committed in 2014 violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The State's reliance on the 2016 “detection” of the alleged offence is misplaced, as the relevant date for applying a penal law is the date of commission, not detection. Accepting otherwise would undermine the constitutional bar on retrospective criminalization. Hence, prosecuting the petitioner under the Aadhaar Act for a 2014 act is legally unsustainable.
It further observed that the mere issuance of an Aadhaar number, without a clear nexus to dishonest inducement or economic gain, does not satisfy the essential requirement of cheating. The requisite mens rea—dishonest intent to induce delivery of property—is lacking, especially considering the petitioner's consistent efforts to rectify the error, which contradict any inference of fraudulent intent.
The court further held that under Section 463 IPC, forgery requires making a false document or electronic record with intent to cause harm or commit fraud. However, the petitioner's consistent efforts since 2015—including multiple complaints to UIDAI and a writ petition—strongly rebut any presumption of criminal mens rea. His sustained attempts to correct the error indicate an intent to obtain his rightful Aadhaar, not to commit fraud or gain dishonestly.
It further added that the petitioner's account of an inadvertent mix-up during a rushed enrolment, supported by UIDAI's own admission of possible biometric mismatches due to technical issues, raises serious doubt about the presence of "wilful" intent required under digital offence provisions.
The court held that the eventual administrative resolution—issuance of the correct Aadhaar and cancellation of the erroneous one—further weakens the claim of deliberate identity theft. As these offences hinge on intentional deception for wrongful gain or loss, the petitioner's consistent corrective efforts strongly negate any inference of criminal intent.
Based on the above, the court concluded that “subjecting the petitioner to the rigors and stigma of a criminal trial, when the very foundational elements of the alleged offenses are absent and the initial act appears to be an innocent mix-up diligently sought to be rectified, would cause grave injustice. This Court is satisfied that the present case squarely falls within the categories identified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal where the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised to prevent the perversion of the criminal justice system and to secure the ends of justice.”
It concluded that in view of the foregoing analysis,it was held that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar, are legally unsustainable and amount to a clear abuse of the process of law. Permitting their continuation would serve no meaningful purpose and would result in undue hardship and injustice to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present application was allowed.
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