Now Reading: Delhi High Court orders government to decide on biometric attendance for prosecutors
-
01
Delhi High Court orders government to decide on biometric attendance for prosecutors
Delhi High Court orders government to decide on biometric attendance for prosecutors
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to decide within four weeks a representation objecting to the mandatory biometric attendance of public prosecutors. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered that the…
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to decide within four weeks a representation objecting to the mandatory biometric attendance of public prosecutors. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered that the petition be treated as a representation and that the government decide it after giving the petitioner a personal hearing.
The Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association had challenged the government's move to implement the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS), arguing that prosecutors, as court officers, attend different courts, police stations, and other locations and that their presence is already recorded in court proceedings. The court noted that despite multiple representations since April 2026, the government had not considered them before issuing directives for implementation.
The court disposed of the plea, granting the association liberty to file a fresh petition if it has any further grievance after the government's decision.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Prosecutors in Delhi are officers of the court whose duties require them to move between courtrooms, police stations, and offices, a characteristic that sets them apart from desk-based government staff. The Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) that the Home Department sought to impose on them was designed for fixed-location employees, making its application to prosecutors a category mismatch that the Association argues is impractical. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, under which election offences are tried, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, define prosecutors as part of the judicial process rather than the executive, a legal distinction the Association relied on. The Delhi High Court, by treating the petition itself as a representation and ordering a personal hearing within four weeks, has forced the government to engage with this structural argument rather than proceed by circular.
Source: livelaw.in
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.
