Patna High Court
Dr. Shyam Kumar Satyapal,versusThe National Medical Commission,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Holding
The Court held that the mandatory implementation of face‑based Aadhaar authentication and GPS‑linked attendance for medical faculty is within the statutory powers of the NMC and does not contravene the right to privacy, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of medical faculty in Bihar, challenged a public notice issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC) that mandated face‑based Aadhaar authentication and GPS‑linked attendance for faculty in all medical colleges. They alleged that the directive violated their fundamental right to privacy under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and exceeded the permissible purposes of the Aadhaar Act. The NMC defended the scheme as a statutory requirement under the NMC Act and the Aadhaar Authentication Rules for good governance. The Court examined the scope of Sections 7, 8, 23, 53 and 57 of the Aadhaar Act, relevant Supreme Court precedents, and the lack of specific injury shown by the petitioners. Concluding that the mandatory biometric attendance is within the statutory competence of the NMC and does not, on the material before it, infringe the right to privacy, the Court dismissed the writ petition. It also directed the NMC to urge state governments to fill vacant teaching posts.
Issues considered
- Does mandatory face‑based Aadhaar authentication and GPS‑linked attendance for medical faculty violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Is the NMC’s directive permissible under Sections 7, 8, 23, 53 and 57 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Benefits) Act, 2016?
- Does the NMC have authority under the National Medical Commission Act to impose such attendance requirements?
- Has the petitioner demonstrated a specific case of injury or violation of fundamental rights to sustain the writ?
- Is the directive ultra‑vires the statutory powers conferred on the NMC?
Subjects
- privacy
- Aadhaar
- biometric attendance
- right to privacy
- Article 21
- National Medical Commission
- constitutional law
- fundamental rights
- GPS tracking
- facial recognition
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11111 of 2025
======================================================
1. Dr. Shyam Kumar Satyapal, son of Satya Narayan Paswan, resident of
Kankarbagh Colony, Near Tempo Stand, P.S. Kankarbagh, Sampatchak,
Lohia Nagar, District-Patna-800020.
2. Dr. Shashi Kapur, son of Late Kedar Prasad, resident of Flat No. B/403,
Bailey Kunj Apartment, Shaikhpura, P.S. Airport, District Patna-800014.
3. Dr. Ajay Kumar, son of Late Jaganath Chaudhary Prabhat, resident of Flat
No. 208, Vasundhra La Greeno, New Bypass Road, Kankarbagh, Ashok
Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Patna-800020
4. Dr. Md. Abu Nasar, son of Md. Naseer Ahmed, resident of House No. 168/2,
Sector-B, New Azimabad Colony, P.S. Sultangaj, District Patna - 800006.
5. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, son of Rajeshwar Baitha, resident of Ward No. 2, village
Parihar, P.S. Parihar, District Sitamarhi-843324.
6. Dr. Chandra Kishore Das, son of Mohan Das, resident of Mohalla Chhoti
Khanjarpur, Jagdishpur, P.S. Barari, District Bhagalpur-812001
7. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Ram Lalit Mandal, resident of Road No. 13,
Rajeev Nagar, Pulwari, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District Patna-800024.
8. Dr. Rakesh Ranjan, son of Braj Kumar Singh, resident of Braj-Geet Kunj,
Indrapuri Colony, Raja Bazar, Rukanpura, Danapur, District Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The National Medical Commission, Sector 8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077,
through its Chairman.
2. The Chairman, National Medical Commission, Sector 8, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110077.
3. The Secretary, National Medical Commission, Sector 8, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110077.
4. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi.
5. The Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
6. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health
Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar.
7. The Officer on Special Duty, Health Department, Old Secretariat,
Government of Bihar.
8. The Principal, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr.Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
2/26
Mr.Saurabh Sunder, Advocate
Mr.Ashish Gaurav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Sahi, AG
Mr.P.N.Sharma, AC to AG
For the NMC : Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr.S.C
Mr.Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate
For the UOI : Dr.K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr.Amit Kishore Sinha, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 17-01-2026
1. A constitutional issue of violation of Right to
Privacy is the bone of contention of the instant writ petition,
where some medical practitioners, who are in employment in
different Medical Colleges and Hospitals in the State of Bihar,
have challenged the public notice, dated 17 th of April, 2025,
issued under the signature of the Secretary, National Medical
Commission, whereby face based Aadhar Identification and
sharing of GPS location for marking attendance of faculty
members of the medical colleges has been directed to be
mandatorily implemented in all medical colleges/institutions.
The petitioners have also prayed for quashing subsequent orders
bearing Memo No. 1128 of 2025, dated 21st of April, 2025
issued under the signature of the Member, Sri Krishna Medical
College, Muzaffarpur and the letter bearing no. 414 (17) dated
30th of April, 2025, whereby and whereunder, all the
departmental heads have been directed for implementation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
3/26
notice, dated 16th of April, 2025.
2. For the sake of brevity, this Court finds it
appropriate, at the outset, to set out the prayers / reliefs prayed
by the petitioners in the instant writ petition:
“i. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the public notice dated 16.04.2025
issued under the signature of the Secretary,
National Medical Commission, whereby the
FACE based Aadhar authentication and sharing
of Global Positioning System (GPS) for marking
attendance of faculty has been directed for
mandatory implementation in all medical
colleges/institutions (Annexure-P/1, Pg.28.).
ii. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the office order bearing memo no.
1128/25 dated 21.04.2025 issued under the
signature of Principal, Sri Krishna Medical
College & Hospital, Muzaffarpur, whereby all the
Departmental Heads have been directed for
implementation of FACE based Aadhar
authentication for marking attendance of
doctors / faculty doctors through Face Biometric
authentication from 01.05.2025. (Annexure-P/2,
Pg. 45).
iii. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of certiorari
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
4/26
for quashing the letter bearing no. 414(17) dated
30.04.2025 issued under the signature of Officer
on Special Duty, Health Department, whereby
pursuant to the notice of the NMC dated
16.04.2025, the Principals / Superintendents of
all the Government Medical Colleges and
Hospitals in the state of Bihar have been directed
to mandatorily implement the FACE based
Aadhar authentication for marking attendance of
doctors / faculty doctors (Annexure-P/3, Pg.46.).
iv. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to implement the
FACE based Aadhar authentication for marking
attendance of doctors/faculty doctors.
v. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to delete all data
collected pursuant to the public notice dated
16.04.2025.
vi. To any other relief(s) that the
petitioners are entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are faculty
members being Assistant Officers, Professor and Heads of the
Department, Associate Professor in Sri Krishna Medical College
and Hospital, Muzaffarpur; Jawahar Lal Nahru Medical College
and Hospital, Bhagalpur; Government College, Bettiah; Nalanda
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
5/26
Medical College and Hospital; Government Medical College,
Purnia; Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital and
Government Medical College, Purnia, respectively.
4. They are aggrieved by a public notice, dated 16th of
April, 2025, issued by the National Medical Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “NMC” for short) by virtue of which,
all medical colleges / institutions under the NMC were directed
to fully shift his face based Aadhar Authentication for marking
attendance NMC from 1st of May, 2025. It was mentioned in the
said public notice by the NMC that the said system of
attendance was introduced to leverage the latest technology and
to make attendance process user friendly. The notice further
provided steps to be followed for such implementation, which
included, among others, attendance to be marked within 100
meters radius of a given GPS location in the college. The
college would share GPS location points where it wants
convince of attendance marking via mobile app. The notice also
required all faculties to install face based Aadhar Authentication
App to their mobile phone. The notice was addressed to medical
colleges and institutions and was also forwarded to the
respective Health Departments in all States and Union
Territories. Suffice it to say that by virtue of the said public
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
6/26
notice, the Health Departments under the State Governments
issued direction and on the basis of the said direction, the
Principals, Medical Colleges and Hospitals issued letters to the
faculty members to give their attendance by face based
authentication system. It is alleged by the petitioners that
introduction of face based authentication attendance is in
complete violation of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of
India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 and K.S. Puttaswamy
(Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India reported in (2019) 1 SCC 1.
5. It is submitted by Ms. Shrishti Singh, learned
Advocate for the petitioners that the impugned circulars and
notice issued by the Principal, Sri Krishna Medical College and
Hospital, Muzafarpur are bad in law in the teeth of the decisions
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy’s case
(supra) as well as under the provision of Sections 7, 8, 23, 53
and 57 of the Aadhar Act.
6. It is urged by the learned Advocate on behalf of the
petitioners that Section 7 specifies the purpose for which Aadhar
No. and its corresponding authentication can be demanded.
Section 7 of the Aadhar Act runs thus:-
“7. Proof of Aadhaar number necessary
for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
7/26
services, etc.—The Central Government or, as the
case may be, the State Government may, for the
purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a
condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service
for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the
receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated
Fund of India, 1 [or the Consolidated Fund of State]
require that such individual undergo authentication,
or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or
in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar
number has been assigned, such individual makes
an application for enrolment: Provided that if an
Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual,
the individual shall be offered alternate and viable
means of identification for delivery of the subsidy,
benefit or service.”
7. A bare perusal of Section 7 of the Aadhar Act
suggests that Aadhar No. is necessary only for receipt of certain
subsidies, benefits and services. It is also provided that if
beneficiary does not have Aadhar No., he can produce
alternative identification no. for getting services mentioned
above.
8. In Puttaswamy’s Case (Aadhar-5J), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the scope of Section 7 of the Aadhar
Act cannot be enlarged other than welfare schemes carried out
by the Government by given subsidies benefits and services
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
8/26
particularly to the members of deprived class. The same purpose
has also been enunciated in Section 23 (2) (h) of the Aadhar Act.
So far the application for Aadhar is concerned and extension to
its user for any other purpose, it was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that other purposes of Aadhar Act is to read
under Ejusdem Generis Rule in relation to subsidies benefits
and services.
9. Ms. Shrishti Singh also refers to Section 8 of the
Aadhar Act which empowers the authority to authenticate an
Aadhar No. submitted by any requesting entity in relation to
biometric information or demographic information. Referring to
the provisions contained in Section 8, it is submitted by the
learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners that Aadhar based
authentication is fully voluntary in nature and nobody can
permitted to submit himself to Aadhar based authentication as
directed by the NMC without consent of the individual Aadhar
card holder.
10. Ms. Shrishti Singh further advances her argument
referring to Sections 53 and 57 of the Aadhar Act to substantiate
that the NMC cannot issue the impugned public notice dated
16th of April, 2025 except for the purpose enunciated in Section
7 of the Aadhar Act which refers to face based Aadhar
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
9/26
authentication for the purpose of subsidies benefits and services
provided by the Government to any of the beneficiaries. She
also refers to Aadhar Authentication Rules, 2020. Rule 3
provides the purposes of Aadhar authentication it states:--
“3. Purposes for Aadhaar
authentication.—(1) The Central Government
may allow Aadhaar authentication by requesting
entities in the interest of good governance,
preventing leakage of public funds, promoting
ease of living of residents and enabling better
access to services for them, for the following
purposes, namely:—
(a) usage of digital platforms to ensure
good governance;
(b) prevention of dissipation of social
welfare benefits; and
(c) enablement of innovation and the
spread of knowledge.
(2) Aadhaar authentication under sub-
rule (1) shall be on a voluntary basis.”
11. Referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2019 1 SCC 1, the learned Advocate for the
petitioners submits that the campaigning doctors and professors
to give Aadhar based face identification attendance is violative
of rights of freedom to practice profession, dignity, privacy
guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
10/26
India. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in
Puttaswamy’s case reported in 2017 10 SCC 1, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court recognized informational privacy as a facet of
privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Face based Aadhar authentication, guarantee the access to the
identity information of the petitioners as well as the GPS
location constitute protected data, the petitioners and similarly
situated persons cannot be compelled to part away. Moreover,
any such action would require sanction of law as provided in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. According to the learned Advocate for the
petitioners, face based Aadhar authentication and requirement
for share GPS location are violative of the Right to Privacy. It is
a facet of dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The responsible medical officers working
as faculty member in various medical colleges and hospitals are
treated as chattels and they are subjected to consistent
surveillance which is impermissible under the law. The
petitioners and similarly other situated persons are compelled to
download third party publication on their mobile phone without
any corresponding data protection regulation. There is every
possibility for the third party to have access of data from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
11/26
mobile phone beyond the purpose of authentication.
13. The NMC, more particularly, Respondent Nos. 1,
2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit against the writ petition
under the heading “reply affidavit” denying all allegations made
out by the petitioners in the writ petition.
14. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, i.e. the
State of Bihar and Officer on Special Duty, Health Department,
Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar.
15. In the counter affidavit, under the heading “reply
affidavit” NMC averred the following factual circumstances:-
Firstly, for the first time NMC introduced biometric
attendance with a gazette notification dated 20 th October, 2020,
as per Section 57 of the NMC Act, which has not been
challenged by the petitioner. Secondly, vide letter dated 1st of
August, 2022, NMC informed all institutes regarding
implementation of NIC Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance
System. Subsequently, on 12th August, 2022, NMC issued
notification for implementation of NIC Aadhar Enabled
Biometric Attendance System. Vide letter a dated 20th of August,
2022, NIC issued another notification for implementation of
NIC Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System. On 25 th of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
12/26
January, 2023, all medical colleges were directed by the NMC
to implement NIC Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance
System. Subsequently, on 2nd of June, 2023, it was informed by
a gazette notification directing introduced Aadhar based
attendance in all medical colleges. The said gazette notification
dated 2nd of June, 2023 was followed by another notification
dated 16th of August, 2023, making Aadhar enabled biometric
attendance mandatory. On 16th of November, 2023, the Medical
Assessment and Rating Board (MARB) of NMC issued public
notice with regard to attendance by way of face identification
through Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System
“AEBAS”.
16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
NMC that the NMC in its annual report “2022-2023” held that
AEBAS is mandatory because of shortcomings of finger based
biometric.
17. In the counter affidavit filed by the NMC, the
above-mentioned circulars and gazette notifications are annexed
for adjudication of the case. Therefore, this Court finds it
necessary to repeat the gazette notifications and circulars
separately in the body of the judgement as this will be repetition
of some factual aspects.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
13/26
18. The learned Advocate General submits that the
practical purpose is required to be considered behind filing of
the case. It is alleged by the petitioners that their privacy would
be violated and such violation is against the celebrated
fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution.
19. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General
that the face attendance through face identification/iris was
since 2020 by the NMC. However, it is found that such
attendance can be given from a remote place without attending
medical colleges and hospitals. As for example, he submits that
doctor while working in Chandigarh could submit his
attendance in Patna through Iris. The problem occurs only when
along with face identification attendance GPS location was
tagged. As soon as GPS location has been tagged, the petitioners
found that if they give attendance from an area beyond 100
meters of the precincts of concerned medical college and
hospital, they will be marked absent. This has caused serious
problem to doctors who on one hand are in employment of
government service in most coveted post of Assistant Professor,
Professor, Head of the Department etc., and also engaged in
private practice during hours when they are supposed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
14/26
discharge their final duties.
20. It is also pointed by the learned Advocate General
that the petitioners have alleged about violation of fundamental
rights but for violation of such fundamental rights what
predicament they face has not been narrated in the writ petition.
21. Under such circumstances, he has brought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
22. Dr. K. N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General has adopted the submission made by the learned
counsel for the NMC and the learned Advocate General.
23. I have heard the learned Advocate on behalf of the
petitioners, learned counsel for the NMC, learned Advocate
General and the learned Additional Solicitor General.
24. It is already recorded that the primary submission
made on behalf of the petitioners is that the introduction of
Aadhar Enabled Face Identification for attendance with GPS
location of the medical officers is a direct violation against their
right to privacy and right to control the dissemination of
personal information. Privacy of a person is not lost or
surrendered merely because the individual is in a public space.
Privacy is a postulate of dignity itself. Privacy concerns arise
when the State intrudes into the body and mind of the citizen.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
15/26
Informational privacy is a facet of Right to Privacy. This right
cannot be interfered with, without a just, fair and reasonable
law. It has to fulfill the test of proportionality, i.e., existence of
law, legitimate State’s aim and proportionate use of the same.
Aadhar Act describes a scheme which is absolutely optional and
voluntary. The Act is declared to be valid when it is applicable
for providing the subsidies benefits and services to the card
holders. Mandatory direction to give attendance by the faculty
members of medical colleges and hospitals are not within the
scope of subsidies benefits and services for which Aadhar was
contemplated.
25. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.
Puttaswamy’s judgement delivered in the year 2017 that the
benefits which are earned by an individual such as pension by
government employee cannot be covered under Section 7 of the
Aadhar Act as it is the right to individual reserving such benefit.
The notifications analyzed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
relation to various welfare schemes indicate that to avail the
benefits, only one time verification is required except for few
services where annual verification is needed. Section 3 of the
Aadhar Act stipulates that it is an enabling provision which
entitled every resident to obtain Aadhar No. Therefore, it is
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
16/26
voluntary in nature. The said fact was got approval in Binoy
Viswam v. Union of India reported in (2017) 7 SCC 59.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017 judgement of
K. Puttaswamy examined the privacy issue of linking Aadhar
No. in relation to PMLA Rules, 2005 and it was held under the
garb of prevention of money laundering or black money, there
cannot be any such sweeping provision which targets every
resident of the country as a suspicious part. Presumption of
illegality is treated as disproportionate and arbitrary. In the said
judgement circulars requiring linking of mobile no. with Aadhar
was tested. The said circulars were held to be unconstitutional as
the circulars were issued without any statutory provision
permitting the respondents to issue circulars. Therefore, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the circular was not issued in
exercise of power under Section 4 of the Telegraph Act, as the
circular itself states that it was issued in terms of the direction of
the Supreme Court. Therefore, not being backed by law, the
requirement of proportionality was not made. Moreover, there
can be other appropriate laws and less inclusive alternatives to
address the misuse of sim-cards. It also impinges upon the
voluntary nature of Aadhar Schemes. It was found to be
disproportionate and unreasonable state compulsion, and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
17/26
therefore the circular was held to unconstitutional.
27. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that on
the same ground, public notice issued by NMC dated 16 th of
April, 2025 whereby face based Aadhar authentication and
sharing of the GPS location for marking attendance of faculty
members in the medical colleges and hospitals was directed to
be mandatory is illegal and unconstitutional and so is the notice
dated 30th April, 2025 issued by the Principal, Sri. Krishan
Medical College and Hospital, NMC.
28. Thus, not only primary but one and only
contention raised by the petitioners is that when Aadhar Act
describes authentication of Aadhar No. for the purposes of
subsidies benefits and service, this cannot be used for the
purpose of giving attendance by the faculty members in medical
colleges and hospitals.
29. The Government of India, Ministry of Electronics
and Information Technology issued a circular, dated 25th of
March, 2025 on the subject of standard operating procedure and
application format for submission of proposal for use of Aadhar
authentication under the Aadhar authentication for Good
Governance (Social Welfare, Innovation, Knowledge) Rules,
2020 (as amended in 2025). The said circular refers to the Good
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
18/26
Governance Rules, 2020, as amended in 2025, to enable any
entity other than the Ministry or Department of Central and
State Governments for utilizing Aadhar authentication, on
voluntary basis, by submitting a proposal with justification in
regard to the authentication sought being for a purpose specified
in Rule 3 and in the interest of State(s) to the concerned
Ministry or Department of the appropriate Government. It is
also directed that if the concerned Ministry or Department is of
the opinion that the proposal submitted thereunder fulfills a
purpose specified in Rule 3 and is in the interest of the State, it
shall forward the proposal along with the recommendations to
MeitY.
30. Thus, the above-mentioned rule clearly establishes
Governments’ intention to use Aadhar based attendance system
for good governance. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners
alleged that Aadhar authentication is voluntary in nature, but it
does not state the alternative system by which attendance of the
faculty members of medical colleges and hospitals can be
ensured.
31. The introduction of biometric attendance system
came to be considered in SLA (Crl.) No. 4116 of 2021 (Rajesh
Kumar Rathore v. The State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 11 th
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
19/26
June, 2021 in relation to verify the genuineness of surety in
subordinate Courts of India. It was held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement:-
“The problem of impersonation
of sureties is rampant in at least some
States. We understand that there is a
surety module software prepared by
National Informatics Center in the Case
Information Module for the Sub-ordinate
Courts in India. But there is still no
mechanism with the courts to verify the
genuineness of the surety. Therefore, we
deem it appropriate to issue notice to the
Central Government and to the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Bangla Sahib Road, behind Kali Mandir,
Gole Market, New Delhi 110001 as to
find out possibility of mechanism for
verification of the surety by the judicial
officers for its authentication as part of
good governance. The desirability of
issuing notice to the States and Union
Territories shall be decided on the basis
of response from the Union/ UIDAI”
32. In Unioin of India & Ors. v. Dillip Kumar Rout &
Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13572 of 2015 decided on 29 th of
October, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 9
and 10 held as hereunder:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
20/26
“9. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, when the
introduction of the Biometric Attendance
System is for the benefit of all the
stakeholders, merely for the reason that
the employees were not consulted before
implementing the same does not render
the introduction of the system to be
illegal.
10. In the facts and
circumstances, we allow the appeal and
set aside the order impugned passed by
the High Court and permit the Office of
the Principal Accountant General,(A&E)
to implement the Biometric Attendance
System as envisaged by its Circulars
dated 01.07.2013, 22.10.2013 and
06.11.2013”
33. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
WP. No. 5569 of 2019 and WMP No. 6339 of 2019 titled as Sri
Thirupathy Venkatachalapathy called upon to decide the legality
and constitutionality of the proposal of the Director of School
Education to ensure attendance of teachers and students in his
school, both Government and Government aided by installing
biometric machines. The writ petitioners challenged the
aforesaid decision of the State Government opposing the
installation of biometric machine in the schools that the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
21/26
Government failed to make suitable arrangement for
transportation, water facilities and other amenities for the
students. Under such circumstances, installation of biometric
machines to secure attendance of teachers and students incurring
huge expenditure was against public interest.
34. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court
dismissed the said writ petition with costs.
35. Again in WP. No. 9314 of 2019 and WMP Nos.
9863 & 9866 of 2019 (Mrs. R. Annal v. The State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors.), the learned Single Bench of Madras High Court
decided the question as to whether implementation of Aadhar
Enabled Biometric Attendance System for teaching and non-
teaching employees in the light of the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme in Puttaswamy’s Case and Section 7 of the
Aadhar Act is illegal and unconstitutional or not. In Paragraph
No. 38 of the said judgement, the Madras High Court decided as
follows:-
“38. The lis on hand, the relief
is to quash the Government order
introducing the Aadhar Enabled
Biometric Attendance System for
Teaching and Non Teaching Staff in
Government Schools. If a Teacher has
chosen to challenge the full proof
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
22/26
attendance system introduced by the
Government, how one can expect from a
Teacher that they will teach discipline to
their own students. The larger question,
which arises in the mind of the Court is
that the growing indiscipline in
Government Schools and Educational
institutions across the State. Stringent
measures to maintain discipline is highly
essential in view of the growing
indiscipline brought to the notice in
public domain. Thus, the Constitutional
Courts are duty bound to issue certain
directions to the Government to regulate
the discipline and decorum in the
Government Schools and Educational
institutions, so as to ensure the
Constitutional perspectives and the
Philosophies are reached out. This
prompted this Court to adjudicate all
these aspects, which all are
interconnected with the discipline and
decorum in the Educational institutions.
Thus, it is very much relevant to state that
when the tax payers money are being paid
by way of salary to these Teachers, they
are bound to be regulated by the State
and their discipline and activities are also
to be monitored with reference to the
Service Conditions, Conduct Rules and
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
23/26
other statutes. The writ petitioner cannot
go and say that she has got a
Fundamental Right in respect of
disclosing her personal identity. If so, the
only option could be to get relieved from
the service. In the event of willingness to
continue in public service, they are bound
by the Service Rules and the policies
introduced by the Government for the
improvisation of the Scheme of Education
as well as the discipline and decorum in
Government Schools and Educational
institutions.”
36. Thus, the writ petition was rejected.
37. Implementation of MCD Smart App for
attendance of Paramedical Teachers And Staffs were questioned
in Paramedical Technical Staff Welfare Association of MCD v.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr in WP (C) No. 13239 of
2022 and CM Appl. 40117 of 2022, the Delhi High Court held
that public authority must have liberty and freedom framing the
policies and on such decision, it was held by the Delhi High
Court that MCD Smart App for attendance cannot be termed as
arbitrary or unfair.
38. The Court has duly considered submissions made
by the learned counsels for the parties.
39. On due consideration of the matter in issue, this
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
24/26
Court does not find any reason to raise this grievance by some
medical officers and faculty members of a few medical colleges
and hospitals in the State of Bihar. It is not in dispute that
biometric attendance system is in force in the entire country in
medical colleges and hospitals. Apart from outraging the right of
privacy, the petitioners have not come forward to any other issue
while challenging Aadhar linked biometric attendance system. It
is apprehended by the petitioners that their personal information
will be revealed before the Government authority but no case is
made out to substantiate such apprehension. An unfounded
apprehension cannot be the basis for issuance of prerogative
writs for protection of fundamental rights because the
petitioners must come forward with the specific case of
violation of fundamental rights. No such case is made out.
40. The NMC is a statutory body, controlling the
medical education, ethics and other related matters of the
country. It is found by the NMC during their inspection that the
medical colleges are run with inadequate numbers of teaching
staff. As a social being, this Court is not unaware of the
condition of the health system of the country. The Government
and Government aided medical colleges are run by inadequate
faculty members, inefficient contractual teachers, lesser number
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
25/26
of laboratory and technical assistants and administrative staff.
41. Under such circumstances if the NMC introduces
a full proof attendance system of faculty members, such system
should not be scrapped on the ground of arbitrariness and
unconstitutional.
42. In view of the above discussion, this Court does
not find any merit in the instant writ petition.
43. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed
on contest.
44. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
45. While dismissing the instant writ petition and
holding the decision taken by the NMC for Aadhar linked
biometric attendance by the faculty members in medical
colleges and hospitals, though the instant writ petition does not
rise the issue, the NMC is directed to take appropriate action
directing the State Government(s) to initiate appointment /
recruitment drive to fill up huge number of vacant posts in
medical teaching service within a time bond period. This Court
anxiously notes that securing attendance of faculty members
will not change the dilapidated health of Health Department of
the State(s). On the contrary, the condition must be improved if
the vacancies are filled up. This Court is not unmindful to note
Patna High Court CWJC No.11111 of 2025 dt.17-01-2026
26/26
that if a medical officer or a faculty member is compelled to act
continuously for 24 hours or 48 hours or even 72 hours without
any break, the tendency of fleeing away and giving false
attendance by such over-burdened, if not tortured, faculty
members, shall remain and though the instant writ petition is
dismissed they will try to find out some other means and ways
to avoid attendance.
46. A copy of this judgement be sent directly to the
Secretary, National Medical Commission in the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India forthwith for
implementation of the observation of this Court contained in
Paragraph No. 45 expeditiously and preferably within 6 months
from the date of this order.
47. Before parting, I would like to write that on
previous two occasions, namely, Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Sr.
S.C, learned Advocate for the NMC is present.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 13.01.2026.
Uploading Date 17.01.2026
Transmission Date 17.01.2026
Checking your session…