ONGC Officers Association Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 & CM APPLs. 24879-24880/2026 ONGC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Biju Thankappen and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.

¶6

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Yashwardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman, Mr. Chanakya and Mr. Dhanajay Singh, Advocates for R-1,2 and 3. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, SSC with Ms. Bhawna Vats, GP, Mr. Ayush and Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Advocates for R-4/UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 23.04.2026

¶11

The Petitioner is an association of officers working in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation [“ ONGC ”]. Its grievance concerns the introduction of a mobile application, namely ‘ iXpert ’, through which the attendance system, namely, System for Attendance Monitoring and Yogdan [“ SAMAY ”] has been implemented for regular employees. The app has been made mandatory for attendance marking with effect from 1^st April, 2026. The Circular dated 17^th March, 2026 and the subsequent E-mail dated 25^th March, 2026 indicate that regular employees, including those at the

¶12

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 1 of 6

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

¶15

Dehradun work centre, were directed to install the application and use it for attendance marking, and broadly set out the way the system operates.

¶16

Mr. Biju Thankappen, counsel for the Association, submits that the Association does not object to the regulation of attendance as such; the objection is to the particular mechanism now sought to be imposed. He submits that ONGC already had in place a functioning ID card-based attendance system, namely, Employee Attendance Control System [“ EACS ”], which, according to the Petitioner, had been operating efficiently and without difficulty. In that background, it is urged that the shift to a mobile app-based attendance system is unnecessary and warrants closer constitutional scrutiny.

¶17

Mr. Thankappen further submits that the SAMAY mechanism, made mandatory with effect from 1^st April, 2026, requires employees to download the ‘ iXpert ’ app on their smartphones and to mark attendance through geofenced punch-in and punch-out supported by facial recognition. The material circulated by ONGC itself shows that the application verifies the user’s location, requires face enrolment, and, at the stage of attendance, prompts the employee to smile and blink for liveness detection. According to Mr. Thankappen, once such a system is introduced, the line between attendance verification and location-based surveillance becomes dangerously thin. His submission is that the app has the capacity to expand into continuous tracking of employees within geo-fenced areas, thereby intruding into their movements within the workplace in a manner disproportionate to the limited object of attendance marking.

¶18

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3, submits, on instructions, that the entire challenge proceeds on an erroneous

¶19

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 2 of 6

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

¶22

premise. According to him, the application is merely an attendancemanagement tool intended to improve accuracy, transparency, and efficiency. He submits that ONGC is not using the application for continuous tracking of employees within office premises and that, apart from verification at the stage of punch-in and punch-out, no further monitoring of movement is undertaken. He further submits that ONGC is conscious of privacy concerns, that data protection safeguards are in place, and that any additional safeguards, if found necessary, will also be considered and incorporated.

¶23

The Court has considered the aforesaid contentions. There can be no quarrel with the Petitioner’s starting point. The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.¹ , recognised privacy as a facet of dignity and liberty. At the same time, it was also made clear that privacy is not absolute. Any intrusion must be backed by law, pursue a legitimate State aim, and satisfy the requirement of proportionality, including the existence of adequate safeguards against abuse. The subsequent Aadhaar judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) & Anr. (Aadhaar) v. Union of India & Anr.² applied and elaborated this structured proportionality framework, particularly in the context of collection and use of biometric data.

¶24

The difficulty for the Petitioner is that, on the present record, the challenge does not travel beyond apprehension. The materials placed on

¶25

1 (2017) 10 SCC 1.

¶26

2 (2019) 1 SCC 1.

¶27

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 3 of 6

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

¶30

record consist of onboarding instructions which state that the application is to be used for marking attendance within “ predefined geo-fenced areas with facial recognition ”. They further indicate that the user is required to punch in upon entering the “ designated geo-fenced area ” and to punch out before leaving it. At both stages, the application verifies the user’s location and identity and employs smile-and-blink prompts for liveness detection. The material also indicates that ONGC offices and onshore installations, excluding wells, have been geo-fenced, and that the application has been made available to regular employees for attendance marking.

¶31

The materials on record do not, at this stage, disclose a system of continuous or roving surveillance of employees throughout the workday. What they disclose, at least on paper, is a system that verifies an employee’s presence within a designated geo-fenced office area at the stage of marking attendance, with facial recognition and liveness checks. While this does involve the collection of personal data and engages privacy concerns, it is still materially different from a regime of constant tracking. There is, at present, no tangible material to conclude that the application monitors an employee’s movement to different locations (such as lunch areas, restrooms, etc.) within the workplace on a continuous basis.

¶32

The submission that the existence of an earlier attendance mechanism, i.e., EACS, precludes the employer from adopting a different technological model cannot be accepted in that absolute form. The choice of the mode of attendance management is, in the first instance, a matter of administrative judgment. At the same time, the existence of a less intrusive, functional alternative is not irrelevant; it is a factor that may bear upon the proportionality of the impugned measure. However, in the present case,

¶33

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 4 of 6

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

¶36

beyond asserting that EACS was operating satisfactorily, no material has been placed to demonstrate that the shift to the SAMAY mechanism is manifestly arbitrary. The further submission that the impugned system lacks statutory backing, or that it was introduced without prior consultation with employee representatives, does not furnish an independent ground for interference. The measure in question is, prima facie , an administrative arrangement/policy decision, relating to attendance management, and no material has been placed to demonstrate that the absence of a specific statutory framework, or of prior consultation, renders it unconstitutional or otherwise arbitrary.

¶37

The Court also notes the concerns raised by the Petitioner regarding the involvement of a third-party service provider in the operation of the application and the attendant risks relating to data protection and access to sensitive information. These concerns cannot be regarded as illusory. A system that entails collection of location data and biometric inputs necessarily raises questions as to data ownership, access control, retention, and security. However, at this stage, these concerns remain in the realm of apprehension, there being no material to indicate actual misuse or breach. 10. Even so, the privacy concern cannot be brushed aside entirely. A system that requires employees to use personal smartphones, submit to facial recognition, and mark attendance within geo-fenced areas necessarily raises questions regarding the extent of data collection, the purpose of its use, the period of retention, and access thereto. The Respondents do not dispute that such concerns require careful handling. As matters stand, the material on record, and the statement made by Mr. Sharma on behalf of ONGC, indicate that the system is confined to attendance marking through geo-fenced

¶38

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 5 of 6

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

¶41

punch-in and punch-out with facial verification, and not to continuous monitoring. In that view, the challenge, as presently framed, rests on apprehended misuse rather than demonstrable infringement.

¶42

No case is made out either for quashing the policy of implementation of the SAMAY system or for directing ONGC to revert to the earlier EACS mechanism.

¶43

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of.

¶44

It is, however, clarified that this dismissal proceeds on the system as described before the Court and on the assurances recorded above. If, in actual implementation, the system is used for continuous tracking, excessive data collection, or for any purpose beyond attendance verification, it will be open to the Petitioner, or any other aggrieved person, to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

¶45

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶46

APRIL 23, 2026/ hc

¶47

W.P.(C) 5074/2026 Page 6 of 6

¶48

This is a digitally signed order.

¶49

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2026 at 13:15:20

ONGC Officers Association v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ONGC Officers Association v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Modern Convent School Vs Yogender Kumar

M/S Kashish Overseas Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shweta Sawhney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Pre-Paid Taxi/ Tsr Workers Association (Regd. 33165) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vikram Singh Saini and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Jai Singh Vs Govt. of NCT through Adm (North) and Anr.

Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Dubey Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Ors.