Background:

The present case highlights the digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities, especially the visually impaired, in accessing essential services like e-KYC for banking, telecom, and government schemes. Petitioners Amar Jain, a visually impaired advocate, and Pragya Prasun, an acid attack survivor, moved the Supreme Court challenging the inaccessibility of digital platforms that rely on facial recognition, CAPTCHAs, and OTPs- features that often exclude disabled users. They argued that this violates their rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and contravenes the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petition urged the Court to mandate inclusive digital infrastructure as essential for a dignified life in a digital age.

Issues

1. Does the denial of accessible digital services to persons with disabilities violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution?

2. Should digital access, including inclusive and barrier-free e-KYC processes- be recognized as an essential component of the right to life and dignity under Article 21?

3. Are government and private digital platforms legally obligated to ensure reasonable accommodation and universal accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court observed that digital access is no longer a luxury but a necessity, and exclusion from digital services directly impacts the ability of individuals to live with dignity and independence.
• • It held that the right to digital access is an essential aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in an increasingly digital society.
• • The Court noted that many existing e-KYC and digital verification systems such as facial recognition, blink detection, CAPTCHA, and OTP-only verification disproportionately disadvantage persons with disabilities, particularly the visually impaired and those with facial disfigurements.
• • The Court emphasized that reasonable accommodation is not optional but a legal and constitutional obligation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and India's commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• • It also criticized both government and private entities for failing to adopt inclusive digital design standards such as screen reader compatibility, voice-based authentication, and multilingual accessibility features.
• • The bench observed that digital platforms must be built using the principle of universal design so that everyone, including persons with disabilities, can access essential services without dependence on others.

Decision:

The Supreme court in his Judgement:

• • Declared that digital access is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• • It held that exclusion from digital platforms violates Articles 14, 15, and 21, as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• • The Court directed the government and service providers to ensure universal digital accessibility and reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
• • It issued 20 binding guidelines, including measures like alternative e-KYC methods, screen reader compatibility, multilingual support, and staff training.
• • The Court emphasized that digital inclusion is essential to dignity, equality, and independence in the modern era.

Why this case matters:

• • Recognizes Digital Access as a Fundamental Right
• • The judgment protects the rights of persons with disabilities by ensuring they are not excluded from essential services like banking, telecom, and e-governance.
• • It reinforces the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, making it clear that reasonable accommodation in digital spaces is a legal and constitutional obligation.
• • The Court’s directions create a national framework for inclusive digital infrastructure, influencing how apps, websites, and services are built across sectors.

Laws related thereto:

Under Constitution:

• Article 21: The Court held that digital access is an essential part of the right to live with dignity, and denial of accessible digital services violates this right.

• Article 14: Unequal access to digital platforms for persons with disabilities was seen as discriminatory and violative of equal protection under the law.

• Article 15: The case addressed discrimination on the grounds of disability, reinforcing the need for inclusive digital systems.

Under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016:

• Section 2(y)– Defines "reasonable accommodation".

• Section 16– Obligates inclusive education and public services.

• Section 42– Mandates access to ICT (Information and Communication Technology).

• Section 46– Requires appropriate measures for accessibility in all areas of life.

Under UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD): The Court cited India’s international commitment to promote, protect, and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by persons with disabilities, including access to digital services.

Judicial Precedents:

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017): Recognized the right to privacy and emphasized the link between digital identity, dignity, and personal autonomy. This case laid the foundation for understanding digital rights as part of fundamental rights under Article 21.

• National Federation of the Blind v. Union Public Service Commission, (2013): Held that denying access to visually impaired persons in competitive exams is discriminatory and violative of their fundamental rights. It stressed reasonable accommodation and inclusive practices.

• Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018): Emphasized the obligation of the State to make public facilities, including technology and information- fully accessible to persons with disabilities.