1. Writ petitions seeking inclusive Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video KYC guidelines for persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 746
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Pragya Prasun & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2024
With
Amar Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2025
Decided On : 30-04-2025
Digital KYC processes must be accessible to persons with disabilities, ensuring compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 2(c), 2(y), 3, 40, 42, and 46 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Digital KYC processes must be accessible to persons with disabilities, ensuring compliance with accessibility standards. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
(B) Digital Inclusion - The court emphasized the necessity for digital services to be inclusive, particularly for individuals with disabilities, ensuring that no one is excluded from essential services. (Paras 15, 16)
(C) Reasonable Accommodation - The court mandated that reasonable accommodations be made for individuals with disabilities in the digital KYC process, including alternative methods for identity verification. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, acid attack survivors and a person with blindness, faced barriers in completing digital KYC processes due to their disabilities, which hindered their access to essential services. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that existing digital KYC processes are not accessible to persons with disabilities, violating their rights under the RPwD Act, 2016 and Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issues included the accessibility of digital KYC processes for persons with disabilities and the adequacy of existing guidelines to ensure inclusivity. (Paras 4, 5, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that digital KYC processes must be revised to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodations and compliance with accessibility standards. (Paras 15, 18)
Result: The court issued directives to ensure that digital KYC processes are inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities, mandating revisions to existing guidelines. (Paras 18, 19)
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The judgment holds that digital KYC processes must be accessible to persons with disabilities and compliant with RPwD Act, 2016 and Article 21 (Paras 14-18) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It directs adoption of reasonable accommodations and alternative methods for KYC, including live photo/live verification alternatives (Paras 15, 16, 18) (!) (!) (!) - It lays down directives for accessibility standards, audits, and shared guidelines among regulators and regulated entities (Directives (!) - (!) ) - It references the need to interpret Article 21 in digital context and bridge digital divide in access to services (Paras 17, 241) - It notes various regulatory frameworks (RPwD Act, RPwD Rules, WCAG/GIGW) and role of RBI, DoT, SEBI, PFRDA in ensuring accessible digital KYC (Paras 12-13, 99-103, 121-125)
Question 1?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege digital KYC barriers violate fundamental rights; respondents contend existing regulatory frameworks provide alternatives and comply with anti-money laundering laws. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Digital KYC processes requiring specific visual tasks exclude persons with disabilities, causing economic and social marginalization and violating accessibility mandates under the RPwD Act, 2016. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 )
4. The right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21, requiring the State to ensure inclusive digital infrastructure. (Para 17 )
5. Directions issued to regulatory authorities to mandate accessibility standards, alternative liveness verification, and human review mechanisms in digital KYC processes. (Para 18 )
6. Is the right to digital access considered a part of the right to life under the Constitution of India?
Yes, the court held that in the contemporary era, the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21, necessitating that the State proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems for all, including marginalized populations. (Para 17 )
7. Are regulatory entities required to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities during digital KYC?
Yes, under the RPwD Act, 2016, the State and regulated entities must ensure reasonable accommodations—defined as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments—to ensure persons with disabilities enjoy and exercise their rights equally with others. (Para 16 )
8. Can the requirement of blinking eyes be the sole criterion for liveness checks in digital KYC?
No, the court directed the RBI to incorporate alternative modes for verifying liveness or capturing live photographs beyond traditional eye-blinking to ensure inclusivity and convenience for persons with facial disfigurements and visual impairments. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, interlinked, and similar, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Technology has played a transformative role in reshaping India’s economy and governance. Initiatives such as Digital India aim to promote efficiency, transparency, and accessibility through digital means. Central to this transformation has been the creation of a robust digital infrastructure, including the Aadhaar program, online KYC mechanisms, and various electronic service delivery platforms. However, amidst this wave of digital progress, there remains a crucial and often overlooked aspect that demands urgent attention – ensuring that digital infrastructure and services are accessible to all, including persons with disabilities and other marginalised groups. True inclusion requires that technological advancements accommodate the diverse needs of all citizens, thereby fostering an environment where no individual is left behind. With this preface, we now proceed to examine the key issues involved in the cases before us.
3. While the petitioners in W.P(C) No.289 of 2024 are acid attack victims, who suffer from facial disfigurement and severe eye burns, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.49 of 2025 is suffering from 100% blindness. These writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to the various respondents to formulate appropriate rules and guidelines for conducting Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video KYC process through alternative methods, with a view to ensuring that the process is more inclusive and accessible to all persons with disabilities-particularly acid attack survivors suffering from permanent facial/eye disfigurement and similarly placed individuals, including persons with blindness and low vision - in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20161[For short, “the RPwD Act, 2016”], Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 20172[For short, “the RPwD Rules, 2017”], and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions further seek to ensure that adequate measures are undertaken to guarantee accessibility and provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, in accessing financial services, telecommunications, and government schemes.
3.1 For the sake of specificity, the prayers made in the respective writ petitions are extracted below:
W.P(C) No. 289 of 2024
“(i) To direct the Central Government to frame fresh guidelines for providing alternative methods or means to conduct the Digital KYC/e-KYC process for acid-attack survivors suffering from permanent eye-disfigurement or similarly placed individuals,
(ii) To direct all public and private establishments conducting Digital KYC/e-KYC process to effectively implement the aforesaid guidelines and frame appropriate organizational policies to provide for alternative methods or means that enable acid-attack survivors suffering from permanent eye-disfigurement or similarly placed individuals to conduct their Digital KYC/e-KYC process,
(iii) To direct the Central Government to frame appropriate provisions to clarify the meaning and interpretation of “live photograph” as mentioned under the Annexure I of the RBI – KYC Master Directions, 2016 for conducting the Digital KYC/e-KYC process to expand its purview beyond the blinking of eyes with other alternative criteria such as movements of facial features and/or voice recognition,
(iv) To direct the RBI to amend and/or frame suitable alternatives for satisfying the requirement of “live photograph” in the Digital KYC/e-KYC process under Annexure I of the RBI – KYC Master Directions, 2016 to enable acid attack survivors suffering from permanent eye-disfigurement and other similarly placed individuals to conduct the KYC process independently,
(v) To direct the Central Government, RBI, SEBI, and TRAI to issue directions to all public and private establishments regulated by them including banks, finan
