IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO . 289 OF 2024
PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
With
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO . 49 OF 2025
AMAR JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Date of decision: 30.04.2025
Judge: Justice R.Mahadevan
FACTS:
The issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, interlinked, so they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.289 of 2024 are survivors of acid attack who suffer from eye burns and facial disfigurement. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.49 of 2025 suffers from 100% blindness. They have filed the present writ petitions seeking appropriate measures to ensure that the Digital KYC/ e-KYC / Video KYC process is available and accessible to person with disabilities. The steps involved in the KYC process create hindrances for such people as the customers have to provide a “live photograph” which requires the blinking of eyes to complete the process. Eventually, individuals with visual impairments and facial disfigurement are not able to perform functions independently and need to seek help from external parties. Such steps are not viable due to which they are denied essential services such as inability to open bank accounts, cellular connections, and other government services.
The petitioners argue that such rules and regulations framed by various regulatory bodies such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA), and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), are inherently discriminatory. Their fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and integrity—guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution—are violated by the barriers. Moreover, government has a duty to enact “reasonable accommodations” in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the current frameworks of Digital KYC/ e-KYC / Video KYC processes violates the fundamental rights of person with disabilities specially guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether the compliances of clicking ‘live photographs’ is discriminatory towards people suffering with facial disfigurement and 100% blindness?
- Whether the regulatory authorities have a statutory duty to implement “reasonable accommodations”, in accordance with the provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016 read with the RPwD Rules, 2017?
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:
Petitioner’s Contentions-
The petitioners argued that the Digital KYC/ e-KYC / Video KYC norms are discriminatory and violative of Article 21. The methods required to comply with the KYC process are inaccessible to people with disabilities such as facial disfigurements and blindness as the facial recognition methods do not provide guidance on how one should align their face with the camera which makes it impossible to complete the tasks without physical assistance. They also submit that the frameworks are required to make reasonable accommodations under RPwD Act, 2016 to make this an autonomous process. Moreover, Article 9 of the UNCPRD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) mandates that the state should make appropriate amendments for person with disabilities to ensure that the access to internet is for everyone which the KYC framework fails to do. The petitioners highlighted the absence of user friendly databases for KYC process, prohibition on prompting and lack of awareness and sensitivity among regulatory bodies to accommodate specific needs and offer alternative methods to solve the problems.
Respondent’s Contentions-
The respondents consist of various regulatory bodies and the contentions were-
- Reserve Bank of India (RBI): The KYC process is mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and RBI does not have the authority to amend the rules provided by the above act. They reiterated that the Digital KYC process does not mandate the ‘blinking eye’ test which allows flexibility. Additionally, RBI have carried out public awareness campaigns and released press releases regarding various KYC and re-KYC issues and has been conducting training programmes to sensitise about the issues.
- Telecom Authority of India (TRAI): They submitted that they have no role in in the formulation and implementation of the Digital KYC process as it falls under the authority of Department of Telecommunications.
- Department of Telecommunications (DoT): They submitted that KYC is a mandatory process to ensure verification of every subscriber. Moreover, they have made recommendations dated 09.07.2018 on ‘Making ICT accessible for Persons with Disabilities” wherein specialised services have been provided to persons with disabilities. The eye blinking mechanism was also not mandatory.
- Securities and Exchange Board of India: SEBI allows electronic signatures as part of its commitment to market accessibility. While physical KYC is always available, digital KYC is an extra choice. For physical KYC, people who are blind or have low vision can use thumb impressions or, if they are unable to sign, a guardian’s signature.
- Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority: They submitted that blinking is not the sole method for liveliness check of the client. As per clause 4 of PFRDA Accessibility Guidelines, the respondent is taking steps towards training and sensitisation of persons with disabilities and allocating special grievance cells to focus on their problems. Alternative KYC methods include thumb impressions but only in physical mode.
- Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India: The Digital KYC process is not mandatory and paragraph M of digital KYC process provides for obtaining either signature or thumb impression of customer plus OTP based authentication is also available. There are also provisions available for disabled persons to nominate a person to submit declaration on their behalf.
RATIONALE:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rationale is firmly anchored in a progressive interpretation of constitutional rights wherein all the rights are equally available to persons with disabilities. Moreover the directive principles under Article 41 direct the State to make effective provisions for disablement. The court also highlighted the ratification of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2006, and the adoption of Incheon Strategy by India. They lay down clear guidelines for State Parties to respect the rights of persons with disabilities and protect them from violation of rights. The government of India enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The act demands strict compliance overriding any conflict in provisions in other acts. The court highlighted Section 2(y) of the act which mentions the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ which refers to the required and suitable modifications and changes that are made without placing an excessive or undue burden in a given situation to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy their rights equally with others.
The court also relied on reasoning drawn by its own precedents, in the case of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Others the court held that accessibility includes access to information, technology and digital platforms which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution. The decision by the court held in Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in Judicial Services was also cited which held that the RPwD Act, 2016, possesses the status of ‘super-statute’ and any denial of rights under the act will be a violation of fundamental right. Finally, the decision held in the case of Disabled Rights Group & Another v. Union of India & Ors provided further support by emphasising the need for removal of barriers that hinder the participation of persons with disabilities and broadens the goal of inclusivity.
The courts reasoning aligns with the ‘social model of disability’ which poses that disability is something which is socially construed through unnecessary barriers created by the society which obstruct the individuals from participating in the society. By emphasizing the “defects” in the digital KYC system and requiring “reasonable accommodations,” the Court subtly recognized the defect in the process’s implementation and design, rather than the petitioners’ disabilities, as the issue.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The case highlights shortcomings in the enforcement and practical application of the Digital KYC Process. The requirements of ‘live photographs’ and reliance on eye blinking depicts the exclusion of people suffering from facial disfigurements and blindness despite the reasonable accommodation mandated by the RPwD Act, 2016. The gap is further highlighted due to lack of clarity in the regulations and absence of authorities to monitor such frameworks adopted by the regulatory authorities. The lack of sensitisation and inaccessibility to technology reveals creation of barriers and defeats the purpose of fundamental right provides by the constitution.
INFERENCE:
From the facts and proceedings of the case, it firmly establishes that the imitative taken by the country known as ‘Digital India’ cannot be a new form of digital apartheid. The court has recognised that access to digital services is fundamentally integral to part of our life. It sets a powerful precedent indicating that advancement of technological processes should be accessible to all the groups of the society. It reinforces the status of the RPwD Act, 2016 as ‘super statute’ and its capability of overriding conflicting provisions in other regulations. Future courts will use this judgement to interpret the definition of ‘reasonable accommodation’ under the act. The judgments clearly enforces a mandatory duty on various statutory authorities to include technological advancements with an inclusive mindset. Customer identification processes should be done with the objective of not creating barriers for a certain section of the society. This ruling will probably be used in future cases involving the regulatory supervision of digital services to call for more thorough and proactive reforms. It emphasizes that simply having a digital service is not enough; people with disabilities must be able to use and independently access the service.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment issuing directives and guidelines to ensure accessibility within the Digital KYC system. The court ordered all regulatory entities to follow accessibility standards which are prescribes from time to time which should be audited by certified professionals and they must involve persons with disabilities while testing any new app or website. The court mandated RBI to amend the process of ‘liveliness’ to include OTP verification. The department of telecommunications was ordered to ensure paper based KYC options. The authorities were also directed to provide different aids of communication such as sign language and audio descriptions for government services. It was held that all the websites, platforms are to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and other relevant national standards, such as the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). It shall be mandatory for all Government websites to adhere to Section 46 of the RPwDAct, 2016, which requires both electronic and print media to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Further, allocated grievance redressal mechanisms for persons with disabilities and RBI was directed lead public awareness campaigns on alternative digital KYC methods and mandate disability awareness training for officials.
Abhavya Bansal
OP Jindal Global University
LLB