The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed a Delhi government directive that made Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance compulsory for all public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors, and assistant public prosecutors working in trial courts across the capital. Justice Amit Mahajan granted interim relief to the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (DPWA), which had challenged the October 5 order issued by the Directorate of Prosecution (DoP). The stay will remain in force until the court hears the matter in December, providing immediate respite to hundreds of prosecuting officers who had been required to register daily attendance through biometric machines or a mobile application.

The impugned order directed all prosecuting officers to register on the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) portal and mark their attendance either at biometric machines installed in district court complexes or via a face-recognition mobile app at the office of the district in-charge. Non-compliance was to attract disciplinary action under applicable rules. The DPWA had previously approached the High Court in August, leading to an order that the DoP consider its representation and decide it within four weeks after granting a personal hearing. However, the representation was rejected on the ground that it lacked merit, with authorities maintaining that recording attendance was necessary. The association then filed a fresh petition, which led to Friday’s interim stay.

Interim Relief Granted

Appearing for the DPWA, senior advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan, and Sacchin Puri argued that public prosecutors are officers of the court appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They submitted that prosecutors’ presence is already recorded daily in judicial order sheets prepared during court proceedings, making an additional compulsory attendance mechanism redundant and unnecessary. The petition contended that the directive was unreasoned, arbitrary, and contrary to the Aadhaar Act, 2016, as well as the Supreme Court’s judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India , which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The impugned action is unreasoned, contrary to the order dated 17.08.2026, contrary to Sections 4(3) and 8 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 as explained in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy , a disproportionate intrusion into privacy under Article 21, and arbitrary under Article 14,” the plea stated. The association argued that mandatory Aadhaar authentication without an alternative mechanism violates the Aadhaar Act and infringes the right to privacy. The court, without delving into the merits, stayed the order as an interim measure and issued notice to the Delhi government, with the next hearing scheduled for December.

Prosecutors’ Workflow and Concerns

The petition detailed the nature of prosecutorial duties, explaining that a prosecutor’s working day begins before courts assemble at 10 a.m. Officers must coordinate with investigating officers, scrutinize police files, verify the presence of witnesses, and prepare remand and bail matters before attending proceedings that continue throughout court hours. The association contended that a rigid attendance system imposes an unreasonable administrative burden, particularly on chief public prosecutors who must account for routine movements connected with court work.

“That 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 constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the petition added. The association argued that treating appearances before other courts, jail duties, visits to police stations, and forensic science laboratories as “mid-day movement requiring weekly regularization” fails to account for how prosecutorial duties are actually discharged.

Legal Challenge and Next Steps

The DPWA questioned the decision-making process preceding the October 5 order, alleging that the authorities rejected its objections without recording reasons or adequately considering its concerns. The petition asserted that compulsory Aadhaar authentication without an alternative mechanism is disproportionate and violates the Aadhaar Act’s provisions that limit mandatory authentication to purposes specified by law. The association also highlighted that the earlier August order of the High Court had directed the government to consider the representation after hearing the association, but the subsequent rejection was cursory.

With the High Court now staying the directive, the immediate practical consequence is that prosecutors in Delhi trial courts are no longer required to mark AEBAS attendance. The interim relief will remain in effect until the court decides the petition on its merits in December. The case is likely to be taken up for further arguments after the winter break, and the court’s final order could have broader implications for the use of biometric attendance systems for judicial officers and court staff across the country. The stay marks a significant interim victory for the DPWA, which had argued that the attendance mandate interfered with the core judicial functions of prosecutors and undermined the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.