Introduction:

In the landmark case of Dulal Kumbhakar v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (C.R.R. 1739 of 2022), decided on 13 June 2025 by the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar, the court emphatically held that the Aadhaar Act, 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The petitioner, Dulal Kumbhakar, was facing charges under multiple provisions—including the Aadhaar Act and sections of the IPC and IT Act—for acts allegedly committed in 2014, prior to the Act’s enactment. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits ex post facto criminal laws, Justice Kumar concluded that applying penal provisions to pre-enactment conduct would violate the constitutional bar, especially when the Act itself contains no clause for retrospective application. The Court underscored that the date of commission of the act (2014), not its discovery (2016), determines whether the law applies—the substantive principle striking at the heart of fairness and due legal process.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Counsels Satatup Purakayastha, Abhishek Chakraborty, and Jagriti Bhattacharya advanced a multi-pronged defense:

• Constitutional Prohibition Against Retrospective Penal Laws:

Article 20(1) enshrines protection against retrospective criminal statutes.

The Aadhaar Act does not provide for retrospective application—making its invocation unconstitutional for 2014 acts.

• Flaws in IPC Charges (Sections 419, 420, 468):

These offences require dishonest inducement or delivery of property; none existed here.

The petitioner’s conduct showed no mens rea—his actions aimed to correct the error, not defraud.

• Lack of Intent Under IT Act (Sections 66C, 66D):

These provisions require wilful intent; but the petitioner’s “mix‑up” during enrollment, recognized by UIDAI’s own records as potential technical error or biometric mismatch, negates such intent.

• Demonstrable Innocent Conduct and Administrative Rectification:

Since 2015, the petitioner made repeated efforts to correct the Aadhaar enrolment error via UIDAI complaints and a writ petition.

Ultimately, the erroneous Eidhaar was cancelled, and his lawful document issued—showing good faith and administrative resolution.

• Abuse of Process and Groundless Charges:

Criminal proceedings appeared to subject the petitioner to unnecessary legal hardship and stigma.

The petitioner’s factual innocence and proactive remedial steps underscored abuse of judicial process.

• COVID‑19 Delay in Seeking Discharge:

A procedural objection was raised concerning a previous discharge application, explained by unavoidable delays due to the pandemic—not by malafide concealment.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

State Public Prosecutors Debasish Roy and Bitasok Banerjee, along with UIDAI Counsel Arun Kumar Maiti, Jasojeet Mukherjee, and R.R. Mohanty countered:

• Detection Date Governs Applicability:

Though the improper Aadhaar enrolment occurred in 2014, detection in 2016 makes the Aadhaar Act applicable—criminalizing discovered misuse.

• Evidence of Impersonation via UIDAI Affidavit:

UIDAI’s documents confirm that biometric de‑duplication revealed duplication, pointing to the petitioner’s impersonation.

• Procedural Misconduct Merits Rejection:

Alleged suppression of a prior discharge application should disqualify the petitioner from relief, citing Raju Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapur.

• Rectification Irrelevant to Criminality:

Even if corrected administratively later, the original act of impersonation remains an offense.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

Justice Uday Kumar meticulously applied constitutional tenets, statutory interpretation principles, and precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to justify quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC:

• Article 20(1) Prohibition on Retrospective Penal Laws:
• With no retrospective clause in the Aadhaar Act, penalizing pre-2016 acts flies in the face of constitutional protections.
• Detection after enactment cannot convert past innocent conduct into current criminality.
• IPC Offences Seek Mens Rea and Dishonest Gain:

No evidence showed property inducement or dishonesty; the petitioner’s corrective efforts contradict fraud inference.

• Forgery Requires Criminal Intent:

Section 463 IPC requires intent to defraud—absent here, as shown by the petitioner’s consistent efforts to obtain his legitimate Aadhaar.

• IT Act Offences Demand Wilful Intent:

UIDAI’s own technical mismatch admission, combined with the petitioner’s proactive rectification, establishes the absence of deliberate wrongdoing.

• Abuse of Judicial Process:

Continued criminal proceedings with no foundational legal or factual basis would cause grave injustice and stigma.

Conclusion:

The court held that prosecuting Mr. Kumbhakar for a 2014 administrative error under a 2016 Act lacking retrospective effect was constitutionally and legally impermissible. Finding that all essential elements for charging under the IPC and IT Act were missing—and recognizing the petitioner’s diligent rectification efforts—the court concluded that the charges were unsustainable and an abuse of judicial process. Accordingly, the High Court quashed all proceedings against him.