Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors[1]
Introduction:
This case concerns two writ petitions filed by individuals with disabilities challenging the accessibility of the digital Know Your Customer (KYC), e-KYC, and video KYC processes. The petitioners included acid attack survivors with facial disfigurement and severe eye burns, and a person with 100% blindness. They argued that the prevalent digital KYC procedures, which mandate actions such as blinking for live photographs, face recognition, and reading text on a screen, are impossible for many persons with disabilities and consequently prevent them from independently accessing necessary services like opening bank accounts or obtaining SIM cards. The petitioners contended that these inaccessible digital verification requirements excluded them from full societal participation and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as their rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
Issues:
The core issues before the Court were
- Whether the existing digital KYC processes infringed upon the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, specifically the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), equality before the law (Article 14), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
- Additionally, the Court examined the obligation of the State and regulatory authorities to provide reasonable accommodations and accessible alternatives in digital KYC processes under the RPwD Act, 2016.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court recognized that in the current digital age, access to essential services is increasingly facilitated through digital platforms, making digital access a constitutional necessity for living with dignity and autonomy under Article 21. The Preamble, Article 14, and Article 15 of the Constitution ensure inclusive protection and non-discrimination, which is violated by exclusion through inaccessible systems like digital KYC.
Articles 19 and 21 further support the right to independent access to public and financial services, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for inclusion and accessibility. The RPwD Act, 2016, shifting to a rights-based model, defines “barrier” and introduces “reasonable accommodation” to ensure equal rights. The Act mandates accessibility across various sectors, including digital platforms, and sets a two-year deadline for compliance with notified standards. India’s signing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) also obliges the State to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination in digital services.
The Court found that the reliance on visual cues in digital KYC processes systematically excludes persons with disabilities, constituting discrimination and a violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. The lack of alternative verification methods and assistive technologies exacerbates the digital divide. Digital inclusion was deemed a constitutional imperative, requiring equality to be built into the design of digital systems from the outset. The Court noted the absence of a uniform definition of “liveness” and the failure to provide alternatives like thumb impressions and voice guidance, which create systemic barriers. Sensitization among officials was also identified as an issue. The Court concluded that digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, necessitating proactive State action to design inclusive digital ecosystems.
Directions Issued
The Supreme Court declared digital services access a constitutional right under Article 21 and found the existing digital KYC processes violated the rights of persons with disabilities. The Court issued detailed directions to the government and relevant authorities to revise digital KYC guidelines. These directions include mandating compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and national accessibility standards, appointing digital accessibility officers, and incorporating accessible design principles and reasonable accommodations.
Specifically, the directives require revising guidelines to offer alternative verification methods for “live photo” checks, such as voice guidance and assistive technologies, moving beyond criteria like blinking. Acceptance of thumb impressions as signatures and allowing guardian assistance were also mandated. The judgment called for accessibility audits, the establishment of grievance redressal mechanisms for persons with disabilities, accessible customer support infrastructure including dedicated helplines, and human-led review of rejected applications to prevent automated exclusion. It also directed the continued availability of paper-based KYC as an alternative for those unable to complete digital processes. Further, the Court emphasized the need for disability awareness and training for officials and public campaigns to disseminate information about accessible digital KYC methods.
[1] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 993