Delhi High Court stays Aadhaar biometric attendance order for public prosecutors

The Delhi High Court has stayed a Delhi government order that required public prosecutors in trial courts to log their daily attendance using an Aadhaar-enabled biometric system.

Justice Amit Mahajan put the directive on hold after hearing a petition from the Delhi Prosecutors' Welfare Association. The association is challenging an October 5 instruction issued by the city's Directorate of Prosecution, which sought to track the daily attendance of state lawyers.

Under that suspended directive, every prosecuting officer was required to register their attendance daily. The government wanted them to do this either by using a physical biometric machine installed at their respective district court complexes or by downloading an attendance app onto their personal mobile phones.

Why prosecutors are objecting

Lawyers representing the association, including senior advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sacchin Puri, argued that the policy is fundamentally flawed. They pointed out that public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors are officers of the court, appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, rather than ordinary civil servants. Their presence is already recorded on judicial order sheets during daily court proceedings, making an additional biometric log redundant.

The association described the mandatory signup for the Aadhaar-Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) as arbitrary, unreasoned and a direct violation of data privacy laws.

The petition also laid out how the work of a prosecutor actually functions, explaining that their schedule is entirely court-centric. Though formal hearings begin at 10:00 AM, a prosecutor's job starts much earlier. Before the court convenes, they must coordinate with police investigating officers, study case files, check on witnesses, and draft paperwork for urgent bail and remand hearings. They are then tied to the courtroom until the day's sessions conclude.

The threat of judicial delays

Imposing a rigid clock-in system, the association argued, would create an unreasonable administrative burden on chief public prosecutors, who would have to constantly account for routine, unpredictable movements between offices and courtrooms.

The petition warned that this distraction would pull prosecutors away from their core duties, lead to delays in bail and trial hearings, and ultimately undermine the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Before filing the lawsuit, the prosecutors had tried to resolve the issue directly with the city government. However, officials rejected their representation, ruling that the biometric mandate was necessary and that the association's complaints lacked merit.

The High Court has issued a formal notice to the Delhi government to respond to the petition. The case is scheduled for its next hearing in December.