Digital Access as a Fundamental Right — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that meaningful access to digital services—including banking, e-governance platforms, welfare delivery systems, online public services, and KYC/e-KYC procedures—forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

On 30 April 2025, in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 289/2024) and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 45/2025), a two-judge Bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan declared that “digital access” is not merely a technological convenience but a constitutional guarantee essential for full and dignified participation in modern society.

Why this matter reached the Court

The petitions arose from individuals — notably persons with visual impairment / blindness and acid-attack survivors with facial or eye disfigurement — who argued that existing digital Know-Your-Customer (e-KYC / video-KYC) mechanisms were inaccessible to them. The standard biometric or face-recognition plus “live-photo / blink-test” based verification systems effectively barred them from accessing banking and other essential services.

The petitioners invoked the right to reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), India’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), 21 (Right to life and personal liberty), and 38 (Directive principle on welfare) to demand inclusive digital service design.

Legal & Constitutional Basis

The Court anchored its reasoning primarily in Article 21, but also relied on Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 38 (State’s duty to promote social welfare). Together, these provisions reinforce that exclusion from digital systems undermines the principles of equality, dignity, and social justice.

The Court further invoked the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016), which mandates equal access to information, communication, and digital services for persons with disabilities.

The judgment adopts a forward-looking constitutional interpretation, recognising that in the 21st century, “life with dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life” is inseparable from digital access. Therefore, the scope of Article 21 must evolve to reflect the digital realities of modern society.

What the Court held

In May 2025 the Supreme Court held that in a digital-first world, excluding persons with disabilities from essential online services can violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court emphasised that the State and regulated private entities must take positive steps to ensure inclusive digital design and reasonable accommodation.

Key Directives Issued By Court

To operationalise the ruling, the Supreme Court issued a set of binding directions aimed at transforming digital service delivery for persons with disabilities. The key mandates include:

  • Revision of digital KYC norms: Regulated entities — including banks, financial institutions, and telecom companies — must provide alternative verification and reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. This includes allowing thumb impressions or other accessible biometric options instead of mandatory live-photo, face-recognition, or blink-test based verification systems that many disabled individuals cannot comply with.
  • Appointment of Digital Accessibility Nodal Officers: Every department and agency must appoint a dedicated officer responsible for monitoring accessibility compliance and ensuring timely redressal.
  • Mandatory accessibility audits: All digital platforms must undergo regular accessibility audits conducted by certified professionals, and must include persons with disabilities in user-testing of digital services.
  • Compliance with RPwD Act standards: Government websites, e-governance portals, digital payment systems, and welfare delivery systems must comply with accessibility requirements under the RPwD Act (including Sections 42 and 46) to ensure non-discriminatory access.
  • Human review & dedicated helpline: A mandatory human-review mechanism and a special helpline must be provided for persons with disabilities whose automatic or digital verification fails, ensuring that essential services remain accessible even when automated systems do not function for them.

Significance — What This Judgment Changes

The ruling marks a paradigm shift: digital access is no longer a privilege or convenience but a constitutional right. It substantially expands Article 21 jurisprudence to reflect the lived realities of a digital age.

For persons with disabilities — and for other marginalised groups such as economically weaker sections, rural populations, and senior citizens — the judgment ensures equal and dignified participation in essential services including banking, welfare delivery, education, and healthcare.

The Court places positive obligations on the State and regulated private entities: not just non-discrimination, but active steps toward inclusive design, reasonable accommodation, and universal accessibility.

The ruling also aligns domestic law with India’s international human-rights commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), strengthening the idea of substantive equality in the digital era.

Case Citation


Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 289/2024)
Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 45/2025)

Two-Judge Bench
Justices J. B. Pardiwala
R. Mahadevan
Held that :
"Digital Access” is not merely a technological convenience but a constitutional guarantee essential for full and dignified participation in modern society.