Delhi HC Treats Prosecutors' Writ as Representation, Directs Decision on AEBAS Attendance Circulars in Four Weeks
The Delhi High Court converted a writ petition challenging mandatory biometric attendance for public prosecutors into a representation, directing the government to decide it within four weeks after a personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court, on 17 August 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed by the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association challenging two government circulars that made biometric attendance through the Aadhaar-Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) mandatory for public prosecutors. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting singly, declined to adjudicate the challenge at this stage and instead directed the State Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi to treat the writ petition itself as a representation and decide it within four weeks, after affording a personal hearing to the Association. The court left open the option of a fresh petition if the grievance remains unresolved.
The Dispute Before the Court
The Government of the NCT of Delhi introduced biometric attendance for government departments, including the Directorate of Prosecution, with effect from 8 April 2026. Pending installation of the biometric infrastructure, prosecutors were required to mark physical attendance from 27 April 2026.
The Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association responded swiftly. It submitted a representation dated 28 April 2026, objecting on the ground that public prosecutors, as officers of the court, are required to attend different courts and, in the course of their duties, visit police stations and other locations. The Association argued that rigid biometric check-ins are impractical given this mobile nature of work, and that their presence is in any event reflected in court records and proceedings.
That representation was neither considered nor decided. Despite this, the Directorate of Prosecution directed prosecutors, vide communications dated 16 July 2026 and 21 July 2026, to register themselves on AEBAS. The Association submitted further representations, which also went undecided. The Home Department then directed implementation of AEBAS in district offices and court complexes through communications dated 24 July 2026, 31 July 2026, and 3 August 2026.
Against this backdrop, the Association filed W.P.(C) 11846/2026 before the Delhi High Court, seeking two forms of relief: first, quashing of Circular No. F.2(1043)/DOP/Biometric Attendance/2026/3091–3098 dated 16 July 2026 and the consequential Circular No. F.2(1043)/DOP/Biometric Attendance/2026/3030–3035 dated 21 July 2026; and second, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to keep implementation of the circulars in abeyance and introduce a practical, court-centric attendance mechanism for public prosecutors.
The Core Legal Tension
The Association's case rested on two related contentions. First, the mandatory AEBAS system does not account for the operational reality of public prosecutors, who cannot remain at a single fixed location to register biometric attendance while discharging their court duties. Second, and procedurally distinct, the government had proceeded to expand and enforce the system without ever addressing the representations the Association had placed before it — a failure that the Association characterised as arbitrary.
The challenge was therefore both substantive, going to the workability of the attendance mechanism, and procedural, going to the government's obligation to consider representations before pressing ahead with implementation.
How the Court Reasoned
After hearing counsel for all parties, Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma did not examine the merits of the challenge to the circulars. The court's approach turned on the fact that representations submitted by the Association had remained undecided throughout the period during which the government progressively rolled out the biometric mandate.
The court directed that the writ petition itself be treated as a representation on behalf of the petitioner Association. By doing so, the court channelled the dispute back to the executive, requiring the government to engage with the Association's concerns directly before the matter returns to court. The direction to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner before deciding the representation was a specific procedural safeguard the court built into its order.
The court set a four-week deadline for this decision, to be communicated to the petitioner. It also made explicit that if any further grievance arises after that process, the Association will be at liberty to approach the court again by filing a fresh writ petition. This keeps the judicial door open without requiring the Association to press the present petition further.
Outcome
W.P.(C) 11846/2026 stands disposed of. The State GNCT of Delhi and the second respondent are directed to decide the petition — treated as a representation — within four weeks from 17 August 2026, after giving a personal hearing to the Delhi Prosecutors Welfare Association and under intimation to it. The Association may file a fresh writ petition if its grievance is not resolved through that process.