The Delhi High Court has stayed a government order requiring public prosecutors to use Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance, following a challenge to the system’s privacy implications and its fit with courtroom duties.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued the stay in a case brought by the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association against the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The association challenged an October 5 order from the Directorate of Prosecution, along with earlier circulars requiring registration and daily attendance through the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System, or AEBAS.
The order directed public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors to register on the attendance portal. Officers were required to record attendance using biometric machines or a mobile application with facial recognition, with non-compliance potentially attracting action under applicable rules.
The association argues that a fixed office-based system does not reflect how prosecutors work. Its petition describes prosecuting officers as officers of the court whose presence is already recorded in judicial order sheets, rather than employees whose duties can be measured solely by arrival and departure at one workplace.
Prosecutors may also appear before other courts, visit jails and police stations, or attend forensic science laboratories as part of case preparation. The association objects to treating those activities as mid-day movements requiring weekly regularization, saying this adds administrative work to routine court-related duties.
The petition also challenges compulsory Aadhaar authentication without an alternative attendance mechanism. It invokes the Aadhaar Act and constitutional protections for privacy and equality, alleging that the requirements impose a disproportionate intrusion and were adopted without sufficient reasons.
The court has stayed the attendance order while the association’s challenge proceeds. The association also objects to requirements to record arrival at an assigned court complex and departure according to duty hours.
The case follows an earlier direction requiring the government to consider the association’s representation after granting a personal hearing. The prosecutors have returned to court, contending that their objections were rejected without adequate consideration.
Biometric timekeeping is also being used in other public-sector workplaces. In the US, New Haven is replacing fingerprint time clocks with face-recognition terminals at municipal sites already using electronic attendance. The Delhi challenge concerns a different operational setting: prosecutors whose work extends across courts and other locations.
Sources: LiveLaw
–
By the ID Tech Editorial Team
