Pragya Prasun v. Union of India
“Supreme Court Declares Digital Access a Fundamental Right, Issues 20 Directions for Accessible e-KYC for Persons with Disabilities”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment consolidating two writ petitions filed by acid attack survivors and a visually impaired lawyer, declared that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court found that mandatory digital KYC (Know Your Customer) processes requiring eye-blinking, facial recognition, or visual verification systematically excluded persons with disabilities from essential banking, telecom, insurance, and pension services. The Court issued 20 binding directions mandating alternative liveness verification methods, acceptance of thumb impressions, universal accessibility compliance under WCAG standards, appointment of digital accessibility nodal officers, periodic accessibility audits, inclusion of persons with disabilities in user acceptance testing, and establishment of dedicated grievance mechanisms.
The Bottom Line
Digital KYC systems must be universally accessible. Persons with disabilities, including those with visual impairments and facial disfigurements, cannot be denied access to banking, telecom, and financial services because they are unable to blink, perform facial recognition, or use visual verification methods. The right to digital access is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
India Ratifies UNCRPD
India signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 30 March 2007 and ratified it on 1 October 2007
India Ratifies UNCRPD
India signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 30 March 2007 and ratified it on 1 October 2007
RPwD Act Enacted
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was enacted, replacing the 1995 Act and expanding protections including digital accessibility mandates under Sections 42 and 46
RPwD Act Enacted
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 was enacted, replacing the 1995 Act and expanding protections including digital accessibility mandates under Sections 42 and 46
Paper-Based KYC Discontinued
Department of Telecommunications discontinued paper-based KYC for telecom services effective 1 January 2024, pushing all customers to digital-only verification
Paper-Based KYC Discontinued
Department of Telecommunications discontinued paper-based KYC for telecom services effective 1 January 2024, pushing all customers to digital-only verification
Petitioner Raises Grievance
Pragya Prasun and other acid attack survivors raised a grievance regarding their inability to complete digital KYC due to the eye-blinking requirement
Petitioner Raises Grievance
Pragya Prasun and other acid attack survivors raised a grievance regarding their inability to complete digital KYC due to the eye-blinking requirement
Paper KYC Restored for PwD
Department of Telecommunications allowed paper-based KYC for persons with disabilities following the petitioner's grievance
Paper KYC Restored for PwD
Department of Telecommunications allowed paper-based KYC for persons with disabilities following the petitioner's grievance
First Writ Petition Filed
Pragya Prasun & Others filed W.P.(C) No. 289 of 2024 before the Supreme Court challenging inaccessible digital KYC processes for acid attack survivors
First Writ Petition Filed
Pragya Prasun & Others filed W.P.(C) No. 289 of 2024 before the Supreme Court challenging inaccessible digital KYC processes for acid attack survivors
Second Writ Petition Filed
Amar Jain, a visually impaired lawyer, filed W.P.(C) No. 49 of 2025 raising similar accessibility issues for persons with blindness and low vision
Second Writ Petition Filed
Amar Jain, a visually impaired lawyer, filed W.P.(C) No. 49 of 2025 raising similar accessibility issues for persons with blindness and low vision
Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Judgment
The Supreme Court declared digital access a fundamental right under Article 21 and issued 20 binding directions to make e-KYC universally accessible for persons with disabilities
Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Judgment
The Supreme Court declared digital access a fundamental right under Article 21 and issued 20 binding directions to make e-KYC universally accessible for persons with disabilities
The Story
The case arose from two consolidated writ petitions. The first petition (W.P.(C) No. 289/2024) was filed by Pragya Prasun and other acid attack survivors who suffered permanent facial and eye disfigurement. These survivors were unable to complete the mandatory digital KYC (e-KYC) process required for accessing banking, telecom, and financial services because the system demanded "liveness" verification through eye-blinking and facial recognition, which was physically impossible for them due to their injuries.
The second petition (W.P.(C) No. 49/2025) was filed by Amar Jain, a visually impaired lawyer suffering from 100% blindness, who faced similar exclusion from digital services. Amar Jain could not independently complete e-KYC because digital platforms were incompatible with screen readers, relied on visual CAPTCHAs, and required visual actions like reading random codes or photographing oneself.
Both petitioners demonstrated that they were prevented from opening bank accounts, purchasing SIM cards, accessing demat and trading accounts, obtaining pension accounts, purchasing insurance policies, filing income tax returns, and accessing government benefit schemes. The core issue was that India's push for digital-first governance through initiatives like Digital India had inadvertently created systemic barriers for persons with disabilities.
The petitioners argued that the absence of a formal definition of "liveness" led to discriminatory implementation where eye-blinking became the de facto standard. They further highlighted that biometric devices used for Aadhaar authentication did not comply with IS 17802 accessibility standards, and RBI Master Directions actually prohibited "prompting" or assistance during KYC, leaving disabled persons completely helpless.
The respondents, including the Reserve Bank of India, SEBI, TRAI, Department of Telecommunications, PFRDA, and IRDAI, acknowledged that while they did not formally mandate eye-blinking as the only method, the practical implementation had created exclusionary barriers. Multiple regulatory bodies submitted their existing frameworks and expressed willingness to find inclusive solutions.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Digital KYC systems exclude persons with disabilities from essential services
The petitioners demonstrated that they were unable to open bank accounts, purchase SIM cards, access demat accounts, obtain pension accounts, purchase insurance, or file income tax returns because the e-KYC process mandated eye-blinking and facial recognition that was physically impossible for acid attack survivors and visually impaired persons.
No formal definition of "liveness" leading to discriminatory implementation
The petitioners argued that neither the RBI nor any regulator had defined "liveness" formally. The absence of a criterion for gauging customer liveness led to eye-blinking becoming the de facto standard, which discriminated against those physically unable to perform this action.
Biometric devices do not comply with accessibility standards
All biometric devices designed for Aadhaar authentication did not comply with IS 17802 accessibility standards. They lacked text-to-speech facilities, had no accessibility features for blind users, and provided inadequate guidance on camera alignment, lighting, or face positioning.
RBI prohibition on "prompting" denies reasonable accommodation
RBI Master Directions prohibited assistance or "prompting" during the KYC process. This effectively denied persons with disabilities any form of reasonable accommodation, leaving blind persons and acid attack survivors completely helpless during verification.
Rejection of thumb impressions denies identity verification
Blind persons predominantly use thumb impressions as their signature. However, digital service providers rejected thumb impression images, and PAN cards based on thumb impressions were not accepted for KYC purposes, creating an additional barrier to access.
Violation of right to life with dignity under Article 21
The systematic exclusion from digital services in an increasingly digital-first governance model violates the fundamental right to life with dignity. Technology deployed without addressing the digital divide inevitably leads to exclusion of vulnerable populations.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Digital KYC is mandated under anti-money laundering law
The RBI submitted that digital KYC is mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the PMLA Rules, 2005, with the process prescribed in Annexure I of the RBI KYC Master Directions. Section 11A(1) of PMLA mandates identity verification for all banking customers.
Eye-blinking is not formally mandated as the only liveness method
The RBI and other regulators submitted that they do not mandate "blinking eye test" specifically. Bank officials can ask varied questions to establish liveness. Video-Customer Identification Process (V-CIP) allows varied questioning sequences, and offline verification is available.
Multiple alternative methods already exist
SEBI submitted that digital KYC is an additional option, not mandatory, with physical KYC available as an alternative. Liveness checks include live facial expressions, nodding of head, showing OTP while visible on screen, and real-time video recording. Thumb impressions are acceptable for those unable to sign.
Paper-based KYC restored for persons with disabilities
The Department of Telecommunications submitted that following the petitioner's grievance, paper-based KYC was restored for PwD customers on 19 March 2024, requiring no live photography or eye-blinking. Priority customer support and special desks in call centres were also mandated.
Accessibility measures are being implemented
SEBI's website complies with WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards, PFRDA issued accessibility standards in August 2024, and IRDAI allows designated persons to submit declarations on behalf of disabled persons. All regulators expressed commitment to improving accessibility.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the tension between India's legitimate digital governance objectives and its constitutional duty to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities. While acknowledging that digital KYC serves important purposes including prevention of money laundering and terror financing, the Court found that practical implementation had created systemic barriers that excluded persons with disabilities from essential services. Drawing on the social model of disability, the Court emphasized that barriers are socially constructed and must be dismantled rather than accommodated. The judgment positioned the RPwD Act, 2016 as a "super statute" with quasi-constitutional significance and held that digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21. The Court issued 20 comprehensive, binding directions aimed at transforming the digital KYC landscape from a "digital-first" to a "digital-inclusive" approach.
The right to digital access emerges as an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The foundational holding of the judgment, establishing digital access as a constitutionally protected fundamental right for the first time from the disability perspective.
Digital KYC systems must account for the needs of all kinds of people, including persons with disabilities, to be constitutionally valid.
Establishes universal accessibility as a constitutional prerequisite for the validity of digital public service systems.
Accessibility represents a non-negotiable obligation under the law, not charitable accommodation.
Reframes accessibility from a welfare measure to a mandatory legal and constitutional requirement.
The RPwD Act, 2016 has acquired the status of a super statute and contains quasi-constitutional significance.
Elevates the RPwD Act above ordinary legislation, making its accessibility mandates effectively inviolable.
Implementing technology without first addressing the deep digital divide and low levels of internet literacy inevitably leads to exclusion.
Recognizes that the digital divide extends beyond disability to affect rural populations, senior citizens, and linguistic minorities.
Society creates barriers and oppressive structures which impede capacities of persons with disabilities.
Adopts the social model of disability, placing the onus on society and institutions to remove barriers rather than on persons with disabilities to overcome them.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Both writ petitions were disposed of with the 20 binding directions. All regulatory bodies including RBI, SEBI, TRAI, Department of Telecommunications, PFRDA, and IRDAI were directed to implement the changes within specified timeframes.
Directions Issued
- All regulated entities must adopt alternative liveness verification methods beyond the default eye-blinking protocol, including facial expressions, head movement, showing OTP on screen, and voice-based verification
- Thumb impressions must be accepted as valid authentication and signature for visually impaired users and persons unable to sign conventionally
- All reporting entities must adopt inclusive authentication mechanisms that do not exclude persons with disabilities
- Every department and regulated entity must appoint a digital accessibility nodal officer to oversee compliance
- Periodic third-party accessibility audits by certified accessibility professionals must be conducted by all regulated entities
- The Reserve Bank of India must issue guidelines to all regulated entities to adopt and incorporate alternative modes for verifying liveness or capturing a live photograph beyond blinking of eyes
- All government websites and digital platforms must comply with Section 46 of the RPwD Act, 2016
- WCAG 2.1 standards must be made mandatory for all digital platforms conducting KYC
- Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) compliance is required for all government digital services
- Persons with visual impairments must be included in user acceptance testing for new digital services and platforms
- All services must provide information in Braille formats where applicable
- Easy-to-read content in alternative formats must be provided by all regulated entities
- Audio-described materials must be provided for all digital KYC processes and services
- Dedicated helplines for persons with disabilities must be established by all regulated entities
- Human review of rejected KYC applications must be provided, with accessible grievance redressal systems
- Accessible grievance redressal systems must be established with clear timelines and accountability
- Mandatory disability awareness training modules must be implemented for all employees of regulated entities
- Inclusion training for staff of regulated entities conducting KYC processes
- Public awareness campaigns about inclusive KYC options must be conducted by regulators
- Regular monitoring and compliance reporting to the Court on implementation of these directions
Key Legal Principles Established
The right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Accessibility is a non-negotiable legal obligation, not a charitable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
The RPwD Act, 2016 is a super statute with quasi-constitutional significance whose mandates transcend ordinary legislation.
Digital KYC systems that exclude persons with disabilities are constitutionally invalid.
The social model of disability recognizes that society creates barriers; the onus is on institutions to remove them.
Security and accessibility are not mutually exclusive but can be simultaneously achieved through thoughtful regulatory design.
Implementing technology without addressing the digital divide inevitably leads to exclusion of vulnerable populations.
Reasonable accommodation under the RPwD Act extends to digital infrastructure and e-KYC processes.
Biometric-exclusive authentication methods breach equality guarantees when they exclude persons with disabilities.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are a person with disability, acid attack survivor, or visually impaired, you cannot be denied banking, telecom, or financial services because you cannot complete digital KYC through eye-blinking or facial recognition.
- Alternative liveness verification methods such as voice recognition, head movement, or OTP-based verification must be offered to you.
- Your thumb impression must be accepted as a valid signature for KYC purposes if you are unable to sign conventionally.
- Paper-based and offline KYC options must remain available as accessible alternatives to digital KYC.
- Every regulated entity must have a dedicated helpline for persons with disabilities. You can seek human review if your KYC application is rejected.
- If a bank, telecom company, or financial institution refuses to accommodate your disability during KYC, you can cite this judgment and file a complaint with the concerned regulator.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The Court held that Article 21 encompasses the right to digital access, making it a fundamental right. Digital KYC systems that exclude persons with disabilities violate this right to life and dignity.
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Biometric-exclusive authentication methods that exclude persons with disabilities breach the guarantee of equality before law.
Article 41
Constitution of India
“The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.”
Relevance: Imposes a constitutional duty on the State to make effective provision for persons with disabilities, supporting the mandate for accessible digital services.
Statutory Provisions
Sections 3, 42, and 46
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
“Section 3 provides for equality and non-discrimination. Section 42 mandates access to information and communication technology. Section 46 sets a time limit for accessibility by service providers.”
Relevance: The primary statutory framework underpinning the judgment. The Court held this Act has quasi-constitutional significance and its accessibility mandates extend to all digital infrastructure.
Section 11A(1)
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
“Banking companies must verify the identity of clients and maintain records.”
Relevance: Provides the legal basis for mandatory KYC, which the Court acknowledged as a legitimate objective but held must be balanced with accessibility requirements.
Rule 9 and Annexure I
Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005
“Prescribes client due diligence requirements and the digital KYC process specifications.”
Relevance: Contains the specific digital KYC procedures that the Court found to be exclusionary in their implementation for persons with disabilities.
Sections 2(c) and 7
Aadhaar Act, 2016
“Defines authentication and governs use of Aadhaar for targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits, and services.”
Relevance: Aadhaar-based biometric authentication was found to exclude persons with disabilities when devices do not comply with accessibility standards.
Related Cases & Precedents
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India
followed(2018) 2 SCC 413
Supreme Court held that accessibility is integral to the rights to life, dignity, and freedom of movement under Article 21. Directed enforceable accessibility standards. The Pragya Prasun judgment builds on this by extending the accessibility mandate to digital infrastructure.
Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission
followed(2021) 5 SCC 370
Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental duty to safeguard the welfare, dignity, and autonomy of persons with disabilities, establishing key principles on reasonable accommodation.
Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India
cited(2018) 2 SCC 397
Emphasized inclusive education and removal of barriers for persons with disabilities, discussing the social model of disability that was adopted in the Pragya Prasun judgment.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
cited(2019) 1 SCC 1
Supreme Court recognized that exclusion from welfare benefits due to authentication failure is unacceptable and required suitable provisions to prevent technological exclusion.
Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services
cited2025 SCC OnLine SC 481
Recognized the RPwD Act, 2016 as a super statute with quasi-constitutional significance and recommended inclusion of disability as a ground of non-discrimination under Article 15.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.