Back
Orders Authorities to Hear Prosecutors' Objections to Biometric Attendance Within Four Weeks
The has directed the Delhi government to consider and decide, within four weeks, the objections raised by the against the mandatory implementation of the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) for public prosecutors. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, disposing of the on , converted the petition itself into a and ordered the authorities to give the association a before taking a decision.
Challenge to Biometric Attendance
The dispute arose after the Delhi government introduced biometric attendance for all departments, including the , effective . While the system was being installed, prosecutors were required to mark physical attendance from . The DPWA submitted a on , arguing that public prosecutors, as , must appear in different courts and visit police stations and other locations as part of their duties. Despite this, the Directorate issued two —on July 16 and —directing prosecutors to register on AEBAS. The subsequently directed implementation in district offices and court complexes through three more communications in late July and early August.
Why Prosecutors Say Biometric Attendance Is Impractical
The association, which represents around 300 prosecutors in Delhi, contended that a fixed biometric system does not suit the nature of prosecutorial work. “Public Prosecutors, being , are required to attend different courts and, in the course of their duties, visit police stations and other locations,” the petition stated. They argued that their presence is already reflected in court records and proceedings, making an additional attendance system redundant and burdensome. The mandatory requirement, they said, forces prosecutors to report to offices before court hours and stand in long queues for biometric attendance, thereby affecting timely court appearances and compliance with judicial duties.
Court’s Decision: Petition Converted into a
After hearing both sides, Justice Sharma declined to the or their implementation. Instead, the court found it appropriate to direct the respondents to treat the petition as a formal from the association. The order stated: “This Court finds it appropriate to direct that the present petition filed before this Court be treated as a on behalf of the petitioner, and the respondents are directed to decide the same, within a period of four weeks from date, under intimation to the petitioner herein, after giving a to the petitioner.”
Next Steps and Liberty to Approach Court Again
The court disposed of the petition on these terms, leaving the association free to approach the High Court again through a fresh if any further grievance remains after the authorities’ decision. The order underscores the court’s preference for the executive to first consider the practical difficulties faced by prosecutors before any on the of the attendance system.
