The Delhi High Court has stayed the Delhi Government’s order making Aadhaar biometric attendance mandatory for public prosecutors, in a challenge by their association that raises privacy, arbitrariness and Aadhaar Act objections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stayed an October 5 order of the Directorate of Prosecution that required public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors to register on the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) and mark daily attendance from October 12, on a petition filed by the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association [Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others].
Justice Amit Mahajan passed the interim order. The Association was represented by Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sachhin Puri, with Advocates Kushal Kumar, Aditya Kapoor, Rishabh Saxena and Harsh Ahuja. The matter is next listed in December.
The impugned order
The October 5 order required prosecuting officers to register on the AEBAS portal and mark daily attendance through biometric machines or a mobile application using face recognition, and warned that non-compliance would invite action under the applicable rules. The Association challenged that order along with earlier circulars mandating registration and daily attendance.
According to the Association, the Directorate’s rules on arrival at the assigned court complex and departure as per duty hours do not match how prosecutors actually work. It says appearances before other courts, jail duties, police station visits, forensic science laboratory visits and other case-related work are treated as mid-day movement requiring weekly regularisation, which it contends is an unreasonable burden on Chief Public Prosecutors and could delay remand, bail and trial proceedings.
The earlier round
The Association had earlier approached the High Court against the attendance circulars. On August 17, the Court directed the authorities to treat the petition as a representation and decide it within four weeks after a personal hearing, with liberty to return if still aggrieved. A hearing was held on September 15, and the Home Department rejected the representation by minutes dated September 30. The Association alleges that these minutes recorded no reasons and did not address its members’ objection to Aadhaar authentication.
The Association’s contentions
The Association argued that prosecuting officers are officers of the Court appointed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that their work is done in the courtroom and that their presence is already recorded daily in judicial order sheets. It further contended that:
- the impugned action is unreasoned and contrary to the Court’s order of August 17, 2026;
- it conflicts with Sections 4(3) and 8 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, as explained in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1;
- compulsory Aadhaar authentication without an alternative mechanism is a disproportionate intrusion into privacy under Article 21 and is arbitrary under Article 14; and
- a rigid attendance regime could hinder the speedy trial guarantee under Article 21.
The order
Justice Mahajan stayed the Directorate of Prosecution’s October 5 order making Aadhaar-enabled biometric attendance compulsory for prosecuting officers. The stay is interim, the contentions above are the petitioner’s, and the Court has not decided the challenge on merits. The petition will be heard next in December.
Why the order matters
The stay suspends, before the October 12 start date, a compulsory Aadhaar-linked attendance regime for the State’s own prosecuting officers. The final ruling will test how far Aadhaar authentication can be made a condition of service for officers of the Court, and how the Aadhaar Act and the privacy principles in Puttaswamy apply to workplace attendance.
Until the matter is decided, prosecutors covered by the October 5 order are not bound to register on AEBAS or mark biometric attendance under it.
Case Title: Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan and Sachhin Puri, with Advocates Kushal Kumar, Aditya Kapoor, Rishabh Saxena and Harsh Ahuja, for the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association