“No one left offline” – The Supreme Court Declares Accessible Digital-KYC a Constitutional Mandate

1. Introduction

The consolidated decision in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 599) represents a watershed moment in Indian disability jurisprudence and fintech regulation. Two sets of petitioners – acid-attack survivors with facial/ocular disfigurement (W.P.(C) 289/2024) and a 100% visually-impaired citizen (W.P.(C) 49/2025) – challenged the inaccessibility of India’s burgeoning digital KYC/e-KYC/Video-KYC regime. They contended that “liveness” tests (usually eye-blinking or reading on-screen text) and inaccessible apps exclude persons with disabilities (PwD) from opening bank accounts, obtaining SIM cards, or accessing pensions, insurance and government benefits, thereby violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD), multiple sectoral regulations, and Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court (Justices R. Mahadevan & J.B. Pardiwala) held that the existing digital-KYC architecture discriminates against PwD and fails the accessibility mandate under the RPwD Act.
• It interpreted Article 21 (right to life & dignity) to include a right to digital access, especially where essential services are delivered online.
• Accessibility duties of the State were elevated to a “constitutional imperative”. The RPwD Act was characterized as a “super-statute”, placing a quasi-constitutional obligation on all entities—public and private.
• The Court issued an extensive set of 19 binding directives (¶18) to RBI, SEBI, PFRDA, IRDAI, DoT, TRAI and all regulated entities (REs) to:
  • adopt WCAG-2.1 / GIGW standards;
  • offer alternative liveness checks (no mandatory eye-blink);
  • accept thumb-impressions and OTP-based e-KYC;
  • retain paper-based KYC for exceptional cases;
  • create disability-sensitive grievance redressal & helplines;
  • permit sharing of CKYC data upon user consent;
  • conduct periodic accessibility audits and training.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 – Reaffirmed State’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation. Guided the Court’s emphasis on individualised adjustments (e.g., accepting thumb impressions).
2. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413 / 2024 INSC 858 – Declared accessibility integral to Articles 14 & 21. The judgment’s language on “cross-cutting right” to accessibility is quoted extensively (¶14.6.1) and forms the doctrinal spine of the present ruling.
3. Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 397 – Stressed inclusive education and removal of infrastructural barriers. Cited to analogise digital KYC barriers.
4. Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025 SCC OnLine SC 481) – Coined the idea of the RPwD Act as a “super-statute”. The present Bench adopts and broadens this concept.
5. Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies During Pandemic (Suo Motu WP (C) 3/2021) – Provided precedent for mandating accessible government tech (CoWIN). Used to extend accessibility principles to fintech.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

• Interpretive expansion of Article 21: Digital exclusion can amount to deprivation of life and liberty in an era where basic necessities are accessed online.
• Substantive Equality (Arts. 14 & 15): Facial/ocular disfigurement and blindness were held to be suspect grounds requiring heightened scrutiny; seemingly neutral KYC norms have differential impact and hence are discriminatory unless justified by a proportionate aim.
• Statutory overlay – RPwD Act, 2016: Sections 3 (equality), 40-46 (accessibility), and the newly notified IS 17802 Standards create binding duties on “establishments”. The Court read these provisions conjunctively with sectoral regulations (RBI Master Directions, PML Rules, DoT circulars, etc.), holding that subordinate legislation must bend to the superior accessibility mandate.
• Proportionality & Least-Restrictive Means: Anti-money-laundering aims (PMLA) are legitimate, but the State failed to prove that eye-blinking is the least-restrictive method. Simpler, equally secure alternatives (voice prompts, OTP, human review) exist.
• Positive obligations on private actors: Because the RPwD Act extends to “establishments” (public and private), banks, fintechs, telecom companies, insurers, etc., are constitutionally answerable when their digital interfaces exclude PwD.

3.3 Potential Impact

1. FinTech & Banking: Banks must redesign KYC portals; V-CIP vendors will need to add audio-instructions, keyboard navigation, and non-visual liveness checks. Non-compliance could attract not only RBI penalties but also disability rights litigation.
2. Telecom Sector: DoT’s 05-12-2023 circular (discontinuing paper KYC) is effectively read-down. TSPs must keep alternate channels for PwD.
3. Securities, Pension & Insurance: SEBI, PFRDA and IRDAI will have to align onboarding APIs and mandate inclusive UI/UX guidelines for brokers, CRA, PoPs and insurers.
4. Broader Digital Governance: The recognition of a “right to digital access” could influence e-courts projects, educational tech, public distribution systems, and future data-protection rule-making.
5. Litigation Trajectory: The decision provides a ready-made cause of action against inaccessible apps/websites under Article 226 or consumer fora, reducing the evidentiary burden on PwD.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Digital KYC / e-KYC / Video-KYC

Electronic processes (web or app) that verify a person’s identity remotely using Aadhaar, selfies, live video and document upload instead of visiting a branch.

“Liveness” Check

Anti-spoofing step to confirm that the person is physically present (not a static photo). Common prompts: eye-blink, nod, speak a word, show OTP.

WCAG 2.1

Global web-accessibility standards issued by W3C, ensuring content is Perceivable, Operable, Understandable & Robust (POUR).

RPwD Act “Reasonable Accommodation”

Tailored adjustments that do not impose undue burden (e.g., allowing thumb impression instead of signature) so PwD can enjoy rights equally.

“Super-Statute”

A regular statute whose normative power and societal acceptance give it quasi-constitutional status; violating it also infringes fundamental rights.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has bridged the gap between financial integrity laws (PMLA) and human integrity principles (RPwD). By rooting accessibility firmly within Article 21, the Court has signalled that India’s digital revolution cannot be propelled on the backs of exclusion. The Pragya Prasun directives provide an actionable roadmap—technical (WCAG/GIGW compliance), procedural (alternative liveness tests, CKYCR sharing), and institutional (grievance cells, periodic audits). Going forward, every regulator, fintech start-up and government agency must treat accessibility not as corporate social responsibility but as a non-negotiable legal floor. The judgment thus transforms the slogan “Digital India” into an enforceable promise: Digital India—for everyone.