Is the all-encompassing onslaught of technology creating a huge social divide that ignores large sections of the population, especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), acid attack survivors, visually impaired and rural poor? It seems so as the Supreme Court in a far-reaching order on April 30 said that the right to digital access is a fundamental right and that the right to life under Article 21 should be reinterpreted from a technological viewpoint.
In an age where digitisation drives governance, service delivery, and economic transactions, the promise of digital India can only be fulfilled if access is inclusive. While digital tools have streamlined identification, verification, and access to essential services, they have simultaneously left out large sections of the population—especially persons with disabilities (PwDs), including acid attack survivors and the visually impaired—who face systemic barriers in using these platforms.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan were hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the inaccessibility of digital KYC and e-KYC processes and seeking redress under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had sought alternative KYC mechanisms that uphold their right to dignity and inclusion.
Citing its 2024 verdict in Rajive Raturi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated that lack of digital accessibility violates Article 21, and ruled that accessibility is a constitutional imperative. The court concluded that bridging the digital divide is a Constitutional imperative, not a policy choice.
Seeking a ray of hope
The petitioners’ grievances centred on the fact that the current KYC verification processes — including live photo capture, facial recognition, and blinking detection — are not designed keeping in mind the disabled. They argued that these methods are exclusionary and violate their right to equal access. Specific directions sought included issuing alternative methods for completing digital KYC, such as using voice recognition or facial feature movements in place of eye-blinking; amending the Reserve Bank of India’s KYC Master Directions to reflect inclusive practices for acid attack survivors and the visually impaired; allowing physical KYC or alternative verification for those unable to fulfill visual prompts; sensitising public and private establishments to accommodate persons with disabilities and ensuring accessibility audits and user testing with visually impaired individuals before launching digital platforms.
The exclusion of persons with disabilities and marginalised groups has had real-world consequences: petitioners were unable to open bank accounts or procure SIM cards because they couldn’t blink to complete facial verification protocols. For those with 100% blindness, such hurdles extend to nearly every digital touchpoint — banking, government schemes, telecom services—thereby obstructing their participation in everyday life.
Systemic barriers in current KYC methods
The RBI’s 2016 Master Direction on KYC, now adopted across banking, finance, telecom, and even governmental schemes, has made digital verification processes indispensable. However, the following methods mandated or commonly used in e-KYC—clicking selfies, signing on screens, OTP verification, reading on-screen prompts, and document scanning — pose substantial hurdles to persons with visual or motor impairments.
Face recognition tools lack screen reader compatibility or voice instructions. Signature capturing often requires precise motor control. CAPTCHAs and visual cues, such as blinking or aligning one’s face, are impossible for many. The result: people with disabilities often depend on a third person to complete processes, which undermines their autonomy and violates their rights to dignity and privacy.
The petitioners argued that under Section 12 of the RPwD Act, public and private players are obligated to provide “reasonable accommodation” to ensure full participation of disabled persons in all spheres of life. Precedents such as Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, and Disabled Rights Group v. UoI have affirmed the state’s duty to facilitate full integration and economic empowerment of PwDs.
Digital accessibility in detail
The issue of digital accessibility has come to the forefront through several cases, including those of acid attack victims and individuals with visual impairments. These individuals face significant barriers in completing digital KYC processes, which are mandatory for accessing essential services like banking, telecommunications, and government schemes.
The digital KYC process, as it stands, excludes persons with disabilities, violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The process requires tasks like clicking selfies, face recognition, and signing documents, which are not accessible to individuals with visual impairments or facial disfigurements.
For instance, acid attack victims with permanent eye disfigurement struggle to complete the KYC process due to the requirement of blinking or capturing a live photograph. Similarly, individuals with visual impairments face difficulties in accessing digital platforms, navigating through complex interfaces, and completing tasks independently.
Legal and Constitutional context
As per the Supreme Court’s observations, KYC processes are vital for verifying identities, preventing fraud, and fulfilling obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, if such procedures are inherently exclusionary, they undermine the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. The court noted that current digital ecosystems — both public and private — often ignore the tenets of universal design and accessibility. Government websites are frequently incompatible with assistive technologies, and many digital services fail to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These oversights violate the RPwD Act, 2016, and the principles enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory.
Top court shows the way ahead
Compliance with accessibility standards: All public and private entities must follow prescribed accessibility norms. Each department must appoint a nodal officer to ensure digital accessibility.
Regular accessibility audits: These must be conducted by certified professionals, with the inclusion of persons with visual disabilities during testing phases.
Alternative verification methods: The RBI must revise its KYC Master Directions to allow non-visual cues—like voice, facial movements, or other biometric alternatives—to confirm identity and liveness.
Customer Due Diligence guidance: The RBI must issue further clarifications mandating regulated entities to offer inclusive processes for verifying customer identities.
Inclusive digital transformation
The verdict has far-reaching implications beyond just banking or telecom sectors. As the state and private sectors increasingly rely on digital mechanisms for delivering services, they must internalise inclusivity as a design principle rather than an afterthought. Digital exclusion is not merely a matter of inconvenience—it is a denial of basic human rights.
Going forward, accessibility must not be siloed as a “disability issue” but embraced as a mainstream concern. Only then can the true vision of Digital India—where no one is left behind—be realised.