In a landmark decision that brings constitutional principles into step with the realities of digital age, the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Pragya Prasun v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India and ors held that the right to access digital services are a fundamental aspect of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. This ruling represents a notable advancement in constitutional interpretation, underscoring the judiciary’s understanding that digital access is not merely convenience but a prerequisite for meaningful engagement in today’s civic, economic, and social spheres.
The judgment builds upon previous landmark rulings. The decision now affirms that digital inclusion is indispensable for upholding dignity, autonomy, and equality and contemporary society. The verdict mandates that both government and private sector entities must develop a digital system that fulfills the constitutional commitment to justice, social, economic, and political rights for every citizen, irrespective of physical abilities.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
After India’s Aadhaar initiative in 2009, eKYC got traction. This concept was widely adopted throughout India and even outside the territory. In every sphere of life, such as opening of bank account, mutual fund, investment, issuing SIM cards, or using Phone Pay, Paytm, Rose Pay, etc., requires KYC details. This system of real-time verification became an integral part of our lives. However, when a person gets disfigured or disabled, this creates a hurdle or restriction in using such facilities.
Pragya Prasun, a disability rights activist and an acid survivor, and Amar Jain, a visually impaired lawyer, approached the Supreme Court, filing two petitions, alleging that various government websites, portals, and mobile applications were not accessible to persons with disability. Pragya Prasun was an acid attack survivor with facial disfigurement and permanent eye damage. Amar Jain was a 100% blind advocate. They highlighted inaccessibility to eKYC process, to the disfigured, which often requires the applicant to eye blinking verification, nod, visual code verification, taking selfies, digital signature and responding to short duration OTPs and challenged such exclusion to be against the statute, Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 and Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The two petitions were filed simultaneously, namely, Pragya Prasun v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India. The Supreme Court consolidated them and gave their verdict, addressing the systematic exclusion of persons with disabilities and creating constitutional protection for them.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED AND KEY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The apex court identified four major legal issues:
- Whether the petitioners faced exclusion from accessing digital services such as those requiring life photographs, eye blinking, or visual code recognition?
- Whether there was a violation of fundamental rights such as Article 14, which provides for the right to equality, Article 15, which provides for non-discrimination, and Article 21, which provides for the right to life and personal liberty?
- Whether there was a failure to provide reasonable accommodation as provided for under section 3 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, thereby resulting in systematic discrimination and marginalization?
- Whether the lack of accessible digital infrastructure contravened India’s obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
SUPREME COURT’S REASONING
The Division Bench of the Supreme Court gave the verdict based on the following reasons,
- The court upheld the right to digital access as a fundamental right. The right to digital access is an interesting component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the digital services are essential for a dignified life, autonomy, and equal participation in public life, and thus cannot be denied to a person with disabilities.
- The Courts also advocated for the state’s obligation under article 21, read with article 14 (right to equality), article 15 (right against discrimination), article 38 (welfare state) and article 46 (protection of marginalized groups) to provide for the digital infrastructure including the access to governmental portals, online platform and financial technologies. They upheld that such access is universal and therefore should be made inclusive. Thereby making bridging the digital divide a constitutional imperative.
- The court underscored the statutory duty of the government and service provider to implement reasonable accommodations for the person with disabilities as is required by section 6 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The court also deemed the current digital KYC process to be exclusionary and in violation of these obligations.
- The Court noted that inaccessible digital platforms prevent persons with disabilities from working, learning, and engaging with society, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity and full participation as guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.
- The court also observed that many digital platforms were not compatible with screen readers and presented crucial information in visual formats without alternative text, significantly hindering access for people with disabilities. This systematic exclusion was found to violate accessibility mandates and constitutional guarantees.
KEY DIRECTIVES BY THE COURT
The court issued more than 20 directives to ensure accessible digital services and eliminate the systematic barriers in availing the services, including,
- Revision of KYC norms to exclude mandatorily eye-blinking or visual code recognition by the Reserve Bank of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority.
- Other methods for verifying ‘liveness’ must be introduced, and thumb impression must be accepted as valid authentication for visually impaired users.
- All directing entities must strictly adhere to the accessibility standards.
- Digital accessibility nodal officers must be appointed to oversee compliance.
- Periodic accessibility audits by certified professionals are mandated for both public and private service providers.
- Compliance with international standards and Indian government guidelines is now mandatory for all government platforms.
- Longer OTP periods to accommodate visual impairments.
- Urged digital platforms to provide content in local languages to include linguistic minorities.
- The government and private entities must adopt WCAG standards, redesign portals, and train staff to comply with the court’s direction.
PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON
This landmark judgment given by the division judge bench relied on the precedents such as,
- Rajiv Raturi v. Union of India (2024)
Herein, it was held that the accessibility for persons with disability is a non-negotiable fundamental and human right under the Indian Constitution and must be enforced through mandatory mechanisms. Additionally, they should be uniform across all sectors and must be enforceable.
The court emphasized that accessibility sets baseline standards for inclusion, while reasonable accommodation addresses individual needs. Both are complementary and necessary for substantive equality.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
The Supreme Court in this case held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to carry on any trade, occupation or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution includes the right to access the Internet. The Internet is recognized as a vital medium for information dissemination and is essential for the exercise of fundamental rights in the digital age. Any restrictions imposed by the state on fundamental rights, such as Internet shutdown or movement restriction, must meet the test of proportionality with proper procedural safeguards and transparency.
- Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission
The apex court held that the principle of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is not limited only to persons with benchmark disabilities (those with 40% or more of a specified disability). The State is constitutionally obligated to provide reasonable accommodation to any person with a disability, regardless of whether their condition is listed or quantified as benchmark disabilities, if such accommodation is necessary for them to access opportunities on an equal basis with others.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment has far-reaching implications in society and has set an important precedent promoting the constitutional principles. Firstly, the directives given by the apex judicial body prioritized the inclusion of everyone in availing the benefits of the social welfare schemes of the governments and accessing the basic facilities such as banking and the telecommunication sector. The directives also focused on mandating compliance with the international standards along with the statute.
Additionally, the judgment is based on the idea of constitutional supremacy and promoting the constitutional principles and fulfilling its objectives, as the duty of the government institutions. The judgement also reinforced its alignment with the international conventions, such as of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, aligning domestic law with international standards.
The judgment invoked the principle of substantive equality, emphasizing that digital transformation must benefit all sections of society, including marginalized and vulnerable groups. The judgment directly addressed the exclusion of persons with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairments or facial disfigurements, from accessing essential digital services.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant advancement in the progression of constitutional rights in the digital era by acknowledging the right to digital access as a part of Article 21, The bench has reiterated that technology should promote equality and inclusion rather than be used as a means of marginalization or discrimination. This ruling goes beyond mere legal recognition. It imposes a proactive duty on the government and commercial entities to develop and execute visual systems that are inclusive, equitable, and accessible, particularly for individuals with disabilities, as seen in cases like Rajeev Raturi. It advances the law of substantive equality and connects constitutional protection with technical reality.
The ruling significantly strengthens India’s position in following international obligations under the United Nations Convention by turning digital accessibility from a policy ideal into a constitutional mandate. Thereby guaranteeing that no one is denied their rights, services or dignity because systems are unable to meet their demands in society. This ruling is essentially a step forward toward a digitally inclusive democracy, guaranteeing that the Constitution’s promise is not constrained by screens but rather expanded by them.