The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the Delhi government’s directive requiring public prosecutors working in trial courts to record their daily attendance through the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS).
Justice Amit Mahajan granted interim relief to the Delhi Prosecutors’ Welfare Association, which challenged the October 5 order issued by the Directorate of Prosecution. The court also issued notice on the petition and scheduled the next hearing for December.
The association argued that compulsory biometric attendance was arbitrary and imposed unnecessary administrative restrictions on prosecutors whose professional duties primarily involve attending court proceedings.
Prosecutors Challenge Mandatory Attendance System
Under the October 5 directive, prosecuting officers were required to register their daily attendance either through biometric machines or a mobile attendance application at their respective district court complexes or offices of the district in-charge.
Appearing for the association, senior advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sacchin Puri submitted that public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors are appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and function as officers of the court.
They argued that prosecutors’ attendance is already reflected in judicial order sheets prepared during daily proceedings, making an additional compulsory attendance mechanism unnecessary.
The petition also questioned the legality of the directive, alleging that it lacked proper reasoning and conflicted with the legal framework governing Aadhaar and the right to privacy.
Association Raises Concerns Over Court Proceedings
Explaining the nature of prosecutorial responsibilities, the association submitted that a prosecutor’s working day begins before courts assemble at 10 am.
Prosecutors are required to coordinate with investigating officers, examine police records, confirm witness availability and prepare matters relating to remand and bail before attending proceedings throughout the court’s working hours.
The association contended that a rigid attendance system could create administrative difficulties, particularly for chief public prosecutors responsible for accounting for routine movements connected with court work.
It further argued that such requirements could interfere with prosecutors’ primary judicial responsibilities and potentially delay remand hearings, bail applications and criminal trials.
According to the petition, these consequences could adversely affect the administration of criminal justice and the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21.
Earlier Representation Rejected
The association informed the court that it had previously approached the authorities seeking relief from mandatory AEBAS attendance.
However, the representation was rejected on the ground that it lacked merit, with the authorities maintaining that recording attendance was necessary.
Advocates Kushal Kumar, Aditya Kapoor, Rishabh Saxena and Harsh Ahuja also represented the petitioner.
The High Court has stayed the implementation of the directive while the challenge remains pending. The matter will be taken up again in December.
