MP High Court Scrutinizes App-Based Teacher Attendance, Demands Affidavits on Training and Network Issues

Bhopal, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has intensified its examination of a contentious government mandate requiring teachers to use a mobile application for attendance, directing both the State and the petitioning teachers to submit detailed affidavits. The court's order focuses on critical factual disputes concerning employee training and the practical feasibility of the app, particularly in areas with poor network connectivity.

The bench, presided over by Justice Maninder S Bhatti, is hearing a writ petition filed by government school teachers challenging a June 20, 2025, circular from the MP Directorate of Public Instructions. This circular, along with a subsequent order, mandates the exclusive use of the "Humare Shikshak" mobile app for recording attendance, linking compliance directly to salary disbursement and potential disciplinary action.

The court's recent directives aim to establish a clear factual basis for the dispute. The State has been ordered to ascertain and confirm whether the petitioners were specifically required to participate in training for the app and if they actually attended. Conversely, each petitioner must file an individual affidavit detailing their attempts to use the app and whether network unavailability thwarted their efforts.

Justice Bhatti's order explicitly states: "Learned counsel for the State is, therefore, directed to obtain instructions as to whether the present petitioners were required to participate in the aforesaid training, and if so, whether they actually attended the same or not. The petitioners are further directed to file individual affidavits indicating whether they made any attempt to mark their attendance through the "Hamare Shikshak App" and, if so, whether they were unable to do so due to unavailability of network connectivity."

This judicial intervention cuts to the core of the teachers' arguments, which blend constitutional challenges with on-the-ground realities. The case, Satyendra Singh Tiwari v State , is scheduled for its next hearing on October 27, 2025.

Constitutional and Practical Objections Raised by Teachers

Represented by Advocates Anshuman Singh and Vasu Jain, the teachers have mounted a multi-pronged legal challenge against the app-based system, arguing it is fundamentally flawed and infringes upon their rights.

1. Arbitrariness and Disproportionality: The primary contention is that making salary contingent upon app-based attendance is an "onerous, arbitrary, and disproportionate" measure. The petitioners argue that this rigid system fails to account for a multitude of genuine issues, including technological illiteracy, lack of personal smartphones, and unreliable internet infrastructure, thereby subjecting thousands of teachers to financial insecurity without a fair and flexible framework.

2. Violation of the Right to Privacy: A significant constitutional objection is the violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The petition asserts that the "Humare Shikshak" app mandates the collection of sensitive biometric and geolocation data. This data collection, it is argued, is being enforced without any statutory safeguards, legislative backing, or a clear data protection policy, placing it in direct conflict with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India .

3. Disregard for Rural Realities and the Digital Divide: The petition highlights the stark disconnect between the policy and the "practical reality of rural life and remote areas." Many teachers are posted in regions where stable internet connectivity is a luxury, not a given. Furthermore, the mandate compels teachers to use their private mobile phones and data plans for official duties, effectively offloading state infrastructure costs onto individual employees without compensation.

Conflicting Claims Over Training and Implementation

The dispute over employee training has become a central focus of the proceedings. During a hearing on October 9, the counsel for the State, Government Advocates Pradeep Singh and Lalit Joglekar, submitted that training sessions for the app were scheduled for the last week of July 2025. A copy of a communication dated July 21, 2025, from the Public Instructions Commissioner to all District Education Officers was presented as evidence of this plan.

However, the petitioners vehemently contested this claim, stating they were never informed about or invited to participate in any such training program. This factual discrepancy prompted the court to demand sworn affidavits from both sides to verify the claims.

Court Demands Data to Substantiate State's Claims

In a move to test the State's assertion of the program's success, the High Court has directed it to produce concrete evidence. The State had claimed that 73% of employees across Madhya Pradesh had already successfully marked their attendance using the "Humare Shikshak" app.

The bench has ordered the State to file a counter-affidavit that not only substantiates this 73% figure with documentary proof but also provides specific data on app usage from the schools where the petitioners are currently posted. This directive will compel the government to demonstrate the app's functionality and adoption rate at a micro-level, particularly in the areas relevant to the petitioners.

"Learned counsel for the State is also directed to file a counter-affidavit bringing on record the documents to demonstrate that 73% of the employees have already marked their attendance through the "Hamare Shikshak App". He shall further seek instructions from the concerned Schools where the petitioners are presently posted and produce data relating to e-attendance marking by other employees of those Schools," the order reads.

Broader Legal Implications

This case transcends a simple service matter dispute. It sits at the intersection of administrative law, constitutional rights, and the challenges of digital governance in a diverse country like India. The outcome could have significant ramifications for how technology is integrated into public sector employment.

Legal experts are watching closely as the case could set a precedent on several key issues: -

The limits of executive orders: Can a government department impose conditions that impact fundamental rights like privacy without a legislative framework? -

The doctrine of proportionality: Is withholding salary for failure to use a technologically dependent system, which may be inaccessible for reasons beyond an employee's control, a proportionate response? -

The State's responsibility in digital transitions: Does the government have an obligation to provide necessary infrastructure, devices, and comprehensive training before making a digital system mandatory and punitive?

As the parties prepare their affidavits for the October 27 hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's methodical, evidence-based approach signals a thorough judicial review of a policy that, while aimed at efficiency, may have overlooked the fundamental rights and practical difficulties of the very employees it seeks to govern.