By Anuradha Gandhi and Rachita Thakur
Introduction
April 2025 marked a significant move in the direction towards India’s digital accessibility rights. In a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court expanded the scope of fundamental rights holding that the inclusive and meaningful digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery is a part of right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
What was the case about?
The Supreme Court was hearing two petitions, filed by acid attack victims suffering from facial disfigurement and severe eye burns, seeking directions to various respondents to formulate rules and guidelines for conducting Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video KYC process through alternative methods.
Brief facts of the case
The present case emanates from two separate writs filed by two acid attack victims with similar issues therefore they were heard together and the Supreme Court had passed a common judgement.
One of the petitioner being acid attack survivors suffered from difficulties in completing the digital KYC/e-KYC process due to their inability to click a “live photograph” by blinking, which prevented them from opening a bank account and purchasing a SIM card from the telecom providers.
As per the second petition, the petitioner suffering from 100% blindness faced difficulty in establishing account-based relationship, conducting transactions, availing services and verifying his identity. These challenges were primarily because the digital KYC/e-KYC/video KYC norms are not designed keeping in view the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities.
Both the Petitioners key concerns were that the Regulated Entities fail to comply with the Centre’s 2021 and 2022 Standards of Accessibility for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) products and services (hereinafter referred to as the “Standards”).[1]
These Standards lay down specific requirements for ICT for persons with disabilities to allow them assistive to access the respective ICT. For example an ICT shall provide at least one mode of non-visual access such an audio, including speech or in haptic or tactile form such as braille for deaf-blind users. Further, the language support for non-visual access should support the language chosen by the user. These Standards also include an option of ‘private access to personal data’ in case of non-visual access is required.[2]
Observations of the Court
The Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices R Mahadevan and J.B. Pardiwala heard the counsels for petitioners accepted that “the principle of substantive equality demands that digital transformation be both inclusive and equitable”. The bench iterated that in today’s contemporary era where access to essential services, governance, education, healthcare and economic opportunities are increasingly mediated through digital platforms, right to life under Article 21 must be reinterpreted in light of these technological realities.
The court further elaborated on the State’s obligations, under Article 21 read in conjunction with Articles 14, 15, and 38 of the Constitution, to encompass the responsibility to ensure that digital infrastructure, government portals, online platforms and financial technologies must be universally accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of the vulnerable and marginalized populations.
The court also placed reliance on the judicial precedents and judgements pronounced by the court at several instances such as in the case of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Ors.[3] holding accessibility a fundamental right integral to the rights of life and dignity. The Court in this case directed the government to establish enforceable accessibility standards across public infrastructure, digital platforms, and services reinforcing the state’s obligation to ensure inclusivity.
Directions issued by the Supreme Court
In view of the aforementioned, the bench issued the following directions:
- The respondent authorities and ministries to direct all Regulated Entities (REs)[3] whether private, government to follow accessibility standards as prescribed from time to time. Respondents shall appoint a nodal officer in every department responsible for digital accessibility compliance.
- All REs to mandatorily undergo periodical accessibility audit by certified accessibility professionals and involve persons with blindness in user acceptance testing phase while designing the app or website or in case of any new feature being launched.
- The RBI to issue guidelines to all Res to adopt and incorporate alternative modes for verifying the “liveness” or capturing a “live photograph” of the customers for the purpose of conducting the KYC/e-KYC beyond the traditional “blinking of the eyes” to ensure inclusivity and user-convenience.
- RBI to issue appropriate clarifications/directions to the all Res that they have Customer Due Diligence and on-boarding of new customers can be done using the video-based KYC process “V-CIP” procedure, where blinking of eye is not a mandatory requirement.
- The Respondent Authorities must design their KYC templates or customer acquisition forms to capture disability type and percentage of the customer and appropriately record a part of the account records as to provide them with accessible services or reasonable accommodations.
- The Respondent Authorities should clearly provide directions to all Res to accept image thumb impression during digital KYC process.
- RBI to amend the Master Directions on KYC to enhance the implementation of the OTP based e-KYC authentication to customers.
- The Respondent Authorities shall establish a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism for People with Disabilities to report accessibility issues;
- The Respondent Authorities shall establish a mechanism for human review of rejected KYC applications in cases where accessibility-related challenges prevent successful verification. A designated human officer shall be empowered to override automated rejections and approve applications on a case-by-case basis.
The need for inclusive digital services and data privacy – An element not to forget
With digital inclusion, the need to protect sensitive personal data becomes a logical and necessary corollary since interactions in digital space not only create digital footprints but also leave data trails behind.
The judgement highlights the necessity to have human oversight where automated decision making is in place that is likely to impact the rights of the individuals and beneficiaries. With the Supreme Court’s affirmation of digital access there is an implied affirmation of safe, secure and dignified access granted which can be ensured when information safety standards are also followed by all entities.
[2] Standard 5.1.3.9. Private access to personal data – RPwD (Amendment) Rules, 2023
[3] 2024 INSC 858