Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri dismissed a writ petition challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar-based facial authentication and GPS-tagged location sharing to mark attendance of faculty in medical colleges and institutions in Bihar. The petition, filed by government medical college faculty members, questioned a public notice directing statewide implementation of the face-based Aadhaar attendance mechanism through a mobile application, including location restriction within a specified perimeter of the institution. The Court upheld the continued implementation of the Aadhaar-linked biometric attendance system for medical faculty and declined to quash the impugned directions. While rejecting the challenge, the Court also directed the National Medical Commission to prompt State Governments to undertake a time-bound recruitment drive to fill vacant medical teaching posts.

The writ petition was instituted by medical practitioners employed as faculty members in various government medical colleges and hospitals in the State of Bihar. They challenged a public notice dated 16 April 2025 issued by the National Medical Commission, which mandated face-based Aadhaar authentication along with GPS location sharing for marking attendance. Consequential orders issued by the Principal of a government medical college and by the State Health Department directing implementation of the system were also assailed.

Also Read: Requiring Accused To Appear On Every Appeal Hearing Unwarranted After Sentence Suspension And Bail : Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that compulsory face-based Aadhaar authentication and GPS tracking violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right to privacy. Reliance was placed on provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, including Sections 7, 8, 23, 53, and 57, and on judgments of the Supreme Court concerning informational privacy and the voluntary nature of Aadhaar authentication. It was asserted that Aadhaar could not be extended beyond subsidies, benefits, and services, and that compelling attendance through biometric and location-based monitoring amounted to unlawful surveillance.

The respondents, including the National Medical Commission, Union of India, and State authorities, justified the system as a governance measure aimed at ensuring regular attendance and addressing deficiencies in faculty availability. They relied on prior notifications, policy decisions, and judicial precedents upholding biometric attendance systems.

The Court examined the principal grievance that mandatory Aadhaar-enabled face recognition with GPS location infringed the right to privacy. It recorded that “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.” The judgment noted that informational privacy forms part of Article 21 and that any intrusion must satisfy the test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.

While acknowledging these principles, the Court observed that “Aadhaar Act describes a scheme which is absolutely optional and voluntary,” but also noted that Aadhaar-based systems have been upheld where used for governance and administrative efficiency. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents on biometric attendance and stated that “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.”

Addressing the petitioners’ apprehension of misuse of personal data, the Court recorded that “no case is made out to substantiate such apprehension,” and held that “an unfounded apprehension cannot be the basis for issuance of prerogative writs for protection of fundamental rights.” It further observed that biometric attendance systems were already in force across medical colleges and hospitals nationwide.

The Court also took note of the regulatory role of the National Medical Commission and observed that inspections had revealed inadequate faculty strength in medical institutions. It stated that “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.” The Court thus found no material to establish an actual violation of fundamental rights arising from the impugned measures.

Also Read: Review Power Requires Express Statutory Conferment; Authority Becomes Functus Officio Once Final Order Is Passed: Patna High Court Reinstates Panchayat Teachers

The Court ordered that “the instant writ petition is dismissed on contest” and “there shall be no order as to costs.”

“While dismissing the writ petition and upholding the decision of the National Medical Commission mandating Aadhaar-linked biometric attendance for faculty members of 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 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.

“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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Saurabh Sunder, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Gaurav, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sahi, Advocate General; Mr. P.N. Sharma, Assistant Counsel to Advocate General; Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Senior Standing Counsel; Mr. Sudarshan Bharadwaj, Advocate; Dr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Amit Kishore Sinha, Central Government Counsel

Case Title: Dr. Shyam Kumar Satyapal & Ors. v. National Medical Commission & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11111 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri