In a groundbreaking judgement delivered on April 30, 2025 (2025 INSC 599), the Supreme Court of India has fundamentally redefined the landscape of digital accessibility in the country. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, has issued wide-ranging directives to make digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements. This ruling not only addresses specific barriers in digital verification processes but also establishes the right to digital access as an intrinsic component of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Petitioners and Their Struggle for Digital Inclusion
The judgement arose from two writ petitions that highlighted the systemic exclusion faced by persons with disabilities in an increasingly digital India. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2024, acid attack survivors with facial disfigurements and severe eye burns articulated their inability to complete digital KYC processes required for essential services. Similarly, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2025, a petitioner with 100% blindness described the daily challenges faced in establishing account-based relationships, conducting transactions, and verifying identity through digital platforms.
The key barrier identified by the petitioners was the requirement for a “live photograph” involving eye-blinking during digital verification—a task impossible for those with certain disabilities. Current digital KYC methods involving face recognition, selfies, on-screen signatures, and other visual verification techniques have effectively barred many persons with disabilities from independently accessing banking services, telecommunications, and government schemes.
The Invisible Barriers in Digital Infrastructure
The judgement meticulously documents the multiple barriers embedded in current digital KYC processes. These include:
- Undefined “liveness” criteria that typically default to eye-blinking
- Inaccessible interfaces incompatible with screen readers
- Selfie-based verification requiring camera alignment is impossible for visually impaired users.
- Signature verification systems that don’t accommodate thumb impressions
- Prohibition on prompting or assistance during the KYC process
- Lack of training and sensitisation among officials and agents
These technical and procedural barriers collectively amount to a form of systemic discrimination, preventing persons with disabilities from exercising their right to financial inclusion, telecommunications access, and participation in government schemes—all essential aspects of modern citizenship.
Legal Framework: Elevating Digital Accessibility to Constitutional Status
The Court’s reasoning is firmly anchored in a robust legal framework spanning international conventions, domestic legislation, and established precedents. The judgement references:
- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), particularly Article 9 on Accessibility
- The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), especially Sections 3, 13, 21, 40, 42, and 46
- The RPwD Rules, 2017, Rules 8 and 15
- The Incheon Strategy (2012)
- National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility (2013)
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW)
More significantly, the Court builds upon its previous decisions in cases like Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024), Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021), and Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India (2018) to establish that digital accessibility is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional imperative.
The judgement explicitly acknowledges the RPwD Act, 2016, as a “super-statute” with quasi-constitutional significance, making any violation of its provisions tantamount to a breach of fundamental rights. This judicial elevation transforms digital inclusion from a policy preference to a non-negotiable constitutional obligation.
Redefining Article 21 in the Digital Age
Perhaps the most far-reaching aspect of this judgement is its reinterpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and personal liberty—in the context of the digital era. Justice Mahadevan’s observations are unequivocal:
“In the contemporary era, where access to essential services, governance, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities is increasingly mediated through digital platforms, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must be reinterpreted in light of these technological realities.”
The Court recognises that the digital divide perpetuates systemic exclusion not only of persons with disabilities but also of rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker communities, and linguistic minorities. It establishes that bridging this divide is “no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life.”
This recognition of “the right to digital access” as “an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty” represents a paradigm shift in constitutional jurisprudence, aligning India’s legal framework with the realities of the digital age.
Comprehensive Directives for Systematic Change
The Court issued twenty detailed directives to various government authorities and regulatory bodies, creating a roadmap for comprehensive reform:
- Appointment of nodal officers for digital accessibility compliance
- Mandatory periodic accessibility audits by certified professionals
- Alternative methods for verifying “liveness” beyond eye-blinking
- Clarification that video-based KYC processes should not mandate eye-blinking
- Modified KYC templates to capture disability type and percentage
- Acceptance of thumb impressions during digital KYC
- Enhanced implementation of OTP-based e-KYC authentication
- Continuation of paper-based KYC as an accessible alternative
- Provision for sign language interpretation, closed captions, and audio descriptions
- Development of alternative formats including Braille and voice-enabled services
- Compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards’ accessibility standards
- Ensuring accessibility of online services, including e-governance platforms
- Adherence to WCAG 2.1 and relevant national standards
- Implementation of KYC information sharing through Central KYC Registry
- Dedicated grievance redressal mechanisms for accessibility issues
- Human review of rejected KYC applications due to accessibility challenges
- Dedicated helplines offering step-by-step assistance
- Public awareness campaigns about alternative KYC methods
- Mandatory disability awareness training for officials
- Strict monitoring of compliance with accessibility guidelines
These directives represent a holistic approach to digital inclusion, addressing technological, procedural, and attitudinal barriers simultaneously.
Implications Beyond Banking and Telecommunications
While the immediate context of the judgement relates to digital KYC processes in banking and telecommunications, its implications extend far beyond these sectors. The Court’s recognition of digital access as a constitutional right creates a precedent applicable to all digital services, whether provided by government agencies or private entities.
The judgement effectively establishes a new standard for evaluating digital initiatives, requiring them to be accessible by design rather than as an afterthought. This could influence areas as diverse as education technology, telemedicine, e-commerce, online dispute resolution, and digital democracy platforms.
Moreover, by framing digital exclusion as a constitutional violation, the judgement provides a powerful legal tool for future advocacy and litigation. It shifts the burden onto service providers to justify any inaccessible features rather than requiring persons with disabilities to prove discrimination.
A New Era of Digital Citizenship
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India marks a watershed moment in India’s journey toward digital inclusion. By recognising digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative, the Court has advanced a vision of citizenship that accommodates the realities of the 21st century.
The true test of this judgement will lie in its implementation. The twenty directives provide a clear roadmap, but their effectiveness will depend on sustained oversight, adequate resource allocation, and attitudinal change among officials and service providers.
Nevertheless, this ruling represents a significant victory for the disability rights movement in India. It acknowledges that in a digital society, access to technology is not a luxury but a fundamental aspect of human dignity and equal participation. As India continues its digital transformation, this judgement ensures that the principle of “leaving no one behind” remains at the centre of both policy and practice.