Why prosecutors in Delhi are challenging mandatory biometric attendance

Why are Delhi's public prosecutors opposing mandatory biometric attendance? The dispute centres on whether a fixed attendance system fits the nature of their court duties

The Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (DPWA) on Monday challenged the mandatory implementation of the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) for public prosecutors in Delhi High Court.

 

The dispute concerns two Directorate of Prosecution (DoP) circulars issued in July. The prosecutors’ main objection is that a fixed government attendance system may not suit their duties, which require them to appear in different courts and visit police stations and other locations.

 

The court directed the authorities to treat the petition as a representation, hear the association and decide the matter within four weeks.

What do the two circulars say?

The petition challenged two communications issued by the Directorate of Prosecution on July 16 and July 21, 2026.

 

 

According to a report by The Indian Express, the July 16 circular made AEBAS applicable to public prosecutors. The July 21 circular went further and made biometric attendance mandatory for public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors serving under the Directorate of Prosecution.

 

The association has argued that the mandate does not take into account the "peculiar nature of prosecutorial duties and the functioning of Criminal Courts".

 

The Delhi government had introduced biometric attendance for government departments, including the Directorate of Prosecution, from April 8. While the biometric system was being installed, prosecutors were required to mark physical attendance from April 27.

 

The DoP later directed prosecutors to register themselves on AEBAS through the July 16 and July 21 communications. The Home Department subsequently directed implementation of the system in district offices and court complexes through communications dated July 24, July 31 and August 3.

Why are prosecutors opposing biometric attendance?

The DPWA had first submitted a representation against the attendance requirement on April 28. It said public prosecutors, as officers of the court, are required to attend different courts and visit police stations and other locations as part of their work.

 

The association said the representation was not considered before the biometric system was taken forward.

 

The association has argued that this makes a fixed biometric attendance requirement impractical.

 

Its case is that a prosecutor's work cannot be measured only by physical presence at a government office because court appearances and other professional duties take place at different locations. It has also argued that prosecutors' presence is recorded in court records and proceedings.

 

The association told The Indian Express that mandatory biometric attendance had "placed an unnecessary administrative burden upon an already overburdened prosecutorial service".

 

The DPWA further argued that attendance requirements could require prosecutors to report to offices before court hours.

 

In its submission, the association said: "Instead of facilitating the administration of criminal justice, they compel Public Prosecutors to spend valuable time reporting to the office, standing in long queues for biometric attendance and completing attendance formalities immediately before Court hours, thereby affecting timely appearance before Courts and compliance with judicial duties."

How is a prosecutor's work different from regular office attendance?

The dispute is centred on the nature of prosecutorial work. The DPWA says public prosecutors are officers of the court and are required to work across different locations rather than remain at one office.

 

The prosecutors in Delhi are qualified advocates appointed by the Centre or state governments to conduct criminal cases on behalf of the state. Around 300 prosecutors are part of the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association, Indian Express reported.

 

The High Court order records the association's specific contention that prosecutors have to attend different courts and, while performing their duties, visit police stations and other locations. It also records the argument that their work and presence are otherwise reflected in court records and proceedings.

 

The association has therefore asked for a different system of recording attendance. In its petition, it sought an alternative "practical and court-centric attendance mechanism for Public Prosecutors". It also sought, as an alternative to quashing the circulars, that their implementation be kept in abeyance until such a mechanism is introduced.

What did the Delhi High Court decide?

The high court order, dated August 17, did not strike down the two circulars or rule that biometric attendance cannot be imposed on public prosecutors.

 

Instead, the court converted the writ petition into a representation to the concerned authorities. It directed the respondents to decide the issue within four weeks from the date of the order and to give the association a personal hearing before taking a decision.

 

The court said: "This Court finds it appropriate to direct that the present petition filed before this Court be treated as a representation 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 personal hearing to the petitioner."

 

The petition was disposed of on those terms. The court also allowed the association to approach it again through a fresh writ petition if it has any further grievance after the authorities take their decision.

 

The authorities have been asked to consider the association's objections, hear it and take a decision within the four-week period set by the high court.