The Delhi High Court has issued a stay on a government directive mandating public prosecutors in trial courts to register their attendance daily via the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS). This decision occurred on Friday and follows a petition lodged by the Delhi Prosecutors’ Welfare Association, opposing the order that was issued by the Directorate of Prosecution on October 5.

Details of the Government Directive

The directive required all prosecuting officers to mark their attendance using biometric systems or mobile applications specifically designed for this purpose at either their respective district court complexes or the office of the district in-charge. This requirement has now been paused as the High Court reviews the matter.

Senior advocates N Hariharan, Ashish Mohan, and Sacchin Puri represented the petitioners and argued that public prosecutors and additional public prosecutors hold positions as officers of the court, established under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. They pointed out that attendance is already routinely documented in judicial order sheets.

The lawyers claimed that compulsory registration through AEBAS lacks reasonable justification and is arbitrary, contravening existing legislation concerning Aadhaar and the right to privacy. They asserted that the current attendance system disrupts the prosecutorial process.

Arguments from the Petitioners

The petitioners emphasised the court-centric nature of a prosecuting officer’s work. They stated that while courts open at 10:00 A.M., prosecuting officers often need to meet with investigating officers, review police files, confirm witness availability, and prepare necessary legal documents beforehand. They argued that enforcing a strict attendance regime could hinder their ability to perform these essential tasks efficiently.

According to the petition, the rigid attendance requirement imposes significant administrative burdens on chief public prosecutors, as they would need to account for routine court-related activities. Furthermore, the petition mentions concerns that such measures could divert prosecutors from core judicial responsibilities, potentially resulting in unnecessary delays in remand, bail, and trial processes. This situation may compromise the swift administration of criminal justice, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioners had previously submitted a representation to the authorities questioning the AEBAS attendance mandate, but their concerns were dismissed due to perceived lack of merit. Despite this, they maintained that a mandatory attendance system is inappropriate for the nature of their work as legal officers.

Next Steps in the Legal Proceedings

With the Delhi High Court’s current stay on the AEBAS attendance order, the challenge against this directive will continue to be addressed during a hearing scheduled for December. The stay indicates that the court acknowledges the necessity of reviewing the implications of such measures on the roles and responsibilities of public prosecutors.

The outcomes of this case may have far-reaching effects on the administrative practices regarding attendance for legal professionals in India, particularly in how they balance court obligations with essential pre-trial responsibilities. The issue highlights ongoing tensions between technology implementation in government processes and the rights of individuals within the judicial system.

As the situation develops, stakeholders from various sectors of the legal field are likely to watch closely, considering the implications for both the prosecution service and the broader judicial framework in the country.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share