After government officials, Delhi prosecutors object to mandatory biometric attendance

Delhi prosecutors have challenged the Delhi government's decision to make biometric attendance mandatory for them, arguing that the move disregards the "peculiar nature" of their duties. The Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association (DPWA) filed a plea in the Delhi High Court on August 17, seeking a direction for the Centre and the Delhi government to consider their plea as a representation.

The association argues that the Aadhaar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) mandate ignores the unique nature of prosecutorial duties and the functioning of criminal courts.

The Delhi government's July 16 and July 21 circulars made AEBAS applicable for public prosecutors, additional public prosecutors, and assistant public prosecutors. The circulars have been in effect since July 24, 31, and August 3. The DPWA contends that the system is impractical given the unique nature of their duties, as their presence is already reflected in court records and proceedings.

They argue that the mandatory attendance has placed an unnecessary administrative burden on already overburdened prosecutorial services.

The DPWA points out that public prosecutors constantly move between courts, attend multiple proceedings, and perform administrative duties simultaneously. They claim that the biometric attendance requirement forces them to spend valuable time reporting to the office, standing in long queues, and completing attendance formalities, which affects timely appearances before courts and compliance with judicial duties.

The DPWA emphasizes that the circulars' mandate assumes that prosecutors work solely at the administrative office of the Directorate of Prosecution, while in reality, their workplace is the court itself.

The association contends that the circulars proceed on an erroneous assumption about the workplace of a public prosecutor and have been implemented without considering the department's representations. The biometric attendance push followed a surprise inspection in April, where several senior staff members, including bureaucrats, were found absent. Since the implementation, only one out of the 114 registered employees of the DoP department has marked attendance on the public dashboard.