The Delhi High Court stayed the Delhi government's order mandating Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance for public prosecutors in trial courts.
The Delhi Prosecutors' Welfare Association challenged the directive, citing privacy concerns, arbitrariness and the impact on courtroom duties.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice on the petition, with the matter scheduled for the next hearing in December.
The Delhi High Court has stayed a Delhi government order that required public prosecutors in trial courts to mark daily attendance through the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System. Justice Amit Mahajan also issued notice on a petition moved by the Delhi Prosecutors' Welfare Association, according to PTI.
The challenge is to an October 5 order issued by the Delhi government's Directorate of Prosecution. The court will hear the matter next in December.
Attendance Directive
The October 5 directive required all prosecuting officers to record attendance every day either on the biometric machine or on their mobile phones through the attendance App.
The order required them to mark attendance at their respective district court complex or at the office of the district in-charge.
The mandate applied to public prosecutors working in trial courts.
Petitioners' Challenge
The petition was filed by the Delhi Prosecutors' Welfare Association. Senior advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sacchin Puri appeared for the petitioner.
The association argued that public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors are officers of the court. It said they are appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and that their presence is already recorded each day in judicial order sheets.
The plea challenged the government's direction to compulsorily register and mark attendance through AEBAS. It argued that the order was unreasoned and arbitrary and ran contrary to the law on Aadhaar and the right to privacy.
Courtroom Workload
The petition linked the challenge directly to courtroom functioning. It argued that the attendance system does not fit the way prosecuting officers work.
"The work of a prosecuting officer is court-centric. Courts commence at 10:00 A.M.; before that, the prosecuting officer confers with investigating officers, scrutinises police files, verifies the presence of witnesses and prepares remand and bail matters, and thereafter remains in court until it rises," the petition said.
"A rigid attendance regime not only imposes an unreasonable administrative burden upon chief public prosecutors to account for routine court-related movements, but also has the potential to divert prosecuting officers from their primary judicial functions and cause avoidable delays in remand, bail and trial proceedings, thereby adversely affecting the expeditious administration of criminal justice and the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it added.
The plea also said the authorities had earlier rejected the association's representation against AEBAS attendance. According to the petition, the authorities informed the petitioner that the representation was devoid of merit and that attendance marking was necessary.
More lawyers appeared. Kushal Kumar, Aditya Kapoor, Rishabh Saxena and Harsh Ahuja also represented the petitioner. The case is listed next in December.
