Back
Stays Aadhaar Attendance Order for Public Prosecutors Citing Privacy
In a significant for public prosecutors, the has stayed an order issued by the that made Aadhaar-enabled compulsory for all prosecuting officers. Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the matter, passed the order on a petition filed by the , which argued that the mandatory attendance regime infringes upon the under and is arbitrary under .
The , dated , directed all prosecuting officers—including public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors, and assistant public prosecutors—to register on the Aadhaar Enabled System (AEBAS) portal and mark daily attendance either through biometric machines or a mobile application using face recognition, effective from . The order further warned that non-compliance would attract action under applicable rules.
Background: A Long-Standing Grievance
The challenge to the attendance circulars is not new. The association had earlier approached the High Court against similar directives. On , the Court directed the authorities to treat the association’s petition as a representation and decide it within four weeks after granting a personal hearing, while allowing the association to approach the Court again if still aggrieved. However, the hearing only took place on —after the stipulated period had expired. The subsequently rejected the representation through minutes dated , without recording reasons or adequately addressing the association’s objections to .
The association argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated the . It contended that the authorities had failed to consider the unique nature of prosecutorial work, which is inherently and cannot be shoehorned into a fixed office-based attendance system.
The Core Arguments: Work in the Courtroom, Not an Office
The petition, represented by senior advocates , , and , along with advocates , , , and , made several key submissions. It emphasized that prosecuting officers are officers of the Court appointed under . Their work is performed in the courtroom, and their presence is already recorded daily in judicial order sheets. The plea stated:
“The work of a prosecuting officer is . 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 mandatory attendance regime required officers to mark arrival at their “assigned Court Complex” and departure “as per duty hours.” Any appearances before other courts, jail duties, visits to police stations, , or other case-related engagements were treated as “mid-day movement requiring weekly regularization.” The association argued that this fails to account for the actual discharge of and imposes an unreasonable administrative burden on Chief Public Prosecutors to account for routine court-related movements.
Legal Grounds: Privacy and Arbitrariness
The petition challenged the Aadhaar-based attendance order on multiple legal grounds. It contended that compulsory without an alternative mechanism violates the , as interpreted in the landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019). The plea argued that the impugned action is a under Article 21 and arbitrary under , as it lacks a to the legitimate aim of ensuring attendance.
The association also questioned the decision-making process, alleging that the authorities rejected its objections without recording reasons or adequately considering its concerns. The plea stated:
“The impugned action is unreasoned, contrary to the Order dated , contrary to as explained in , a under Article 21, and arbitrary under .”
Impact on Administration of Justice
Beyond the privacy concerns, the association argued that the rigid attendance regime could have a detrimental effect on the expeditious administration of criminal justice. The plea warned that requiring prosecuting officers to comply with a fixed attendance system may divert them from their primary judicial functions and cause avoidable delays in remand, bail, and trial proceedings. It noted:
“Such 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 under of India.”
The court accepted these submissions as raising serious questions and granted an interim stay on the operation of the order. The matter will now be heard in for further arguments.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Ahead
The ’s decision to stay the Aadhaar order marks a crucial moment in the ongoing tension between administrative efficiency and the fundamental rights of public prosecutors. While the government’s intent may have been to ensure punctuality and accountability, the court has recognised that prosecutorial work cannot be measured by the same yardstick as office-based employees. The case now hinges on whether the state can justify such a regime under the Aadhaar Act and constitutional guarantees.
For the legal community, the outcome of this challenge will have broader implications. It may set a precedent for how courts view the application of systems to officers of the court, and reinforce the principle that the right to privacy under Article 21 must be protected from disproportionate state intrusion. As the matter awaits its next hearing, the stay provides temporary relief to hundreds of public prosecutors in Delhi who perform their duties daily in the courts, not in an office.
