The Delhi High Court has stayed a Delhi government order requiring public prosecutors to record daily attendance through the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), pausing implementation of the mandate until the matter is heard further.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice on a petition filed by the Delhi Prosecutors’ Welfare Association against the directive issued by the Directorate of Prosecution on October 5. The matter is scheduled to be heard next in December.
Under the order, prosecuting officers were required to mark their attendance either on biometric machines or through an attendance application on their mobile phones at their respective district court complex or the office of the district in-charge.
The association challenged the requirement, arguing that public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors are officers of the court appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It submitted that their presence is already recorded in judicial order sheets each day.
The petition described the compulsory Aadhaar-linked attendance requirement as unreasoned and arbitrary, and alleged that it was contrary to the law on Aadhaar and the right to privacy. The petitioners were represented by senior advocates N. Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sacchin Puri, along with lawyers Kushal Kumar, Aditya Kapoor, Rishabh Saxena and Harsh Ahuja.
The association also disputed the suitability of a fixed attendance system for prosecutors whose work is organised around court proceedings and case preparation. According to the petition, prosecutors confer with investigating officers, scrutinise police files, verify the presence of witnesses and prepare remand and bail matters before courts begin at 10 a.m. They then remain in court until proceedings conclude.
The petition said that a rigid attendance system could create an administrative burden for chief public prosecutors who would have to account for routine court-related movements. It also argued that the system could divert prosecutors from their primary judicial functions and cause delays in remand, bail and trial proceedings.
The plea further linked the issue to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21. It said the authorities had previously rejected the association’s representation against the AEBAS requirement, maintaining that the representation lacked merit and that attendance marking was necessary.
The High Court’s interim order places the immediate operation of the mandate on hold while it considers the challenge. The next hearing in December is expected to determine the subsequent course of the petition.
