In a landmark 2025 ruling that underscores the evolving understanding of fundamental rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed that digital access is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision not only reinforces the importance of inclusive governance but also mandates significant reforms in how digital systems—especially Know Your Customer (KYC) norms—are implemented across sectors.

The right to digital access ensures that every citizen—including persons with disabilities and marginalized communities—has equal access to digital public and financial infrastructure. It upholds the principle that digital connectivity and services are not privileges, but essential rights in an increasingly digital society.

In a landmark interpretation, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include digital accessibility. This reinterpretation comes amid growing reliance on digital systems for identity verification, public services, governance, and welfare delivery.

This move acknowledges that in today’s world, digital connectivity is not a luxury but a necessity. From accessing welfare benefits to opening a bank account, and from receiving education to accessing healthcare—digital systems form the backbone of modern public life. Denying or limiting digital access effectively means excluding individuals from full participation in civic, economic, and social life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR KYC NORMS

One of the most immediate and critical impacts of this judgment is the directive to revise digital KYC norms. Traditional KYC processes—often digital-first and reliant on biometric verification or internet access—have inadvertently marginalized large sections of the population, especially those in rural areas or individuals lacking digital literacy.

The Court emphasized that while ensuring secure and reliable identification is important, it must not come at the cost of accessibility and inclusion. The revised digital KYC norms will need to:

• Accommodate those without smartphones or stable internet connections
• Offer multilingual support
• Include alternative, non-digital means of verification
• Avoid over-reliance on biometric systems that may not always function reliably

THE LANDMARK JUDGEMENT : PRAGYA PRASUN & AMAR JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA (2025)

In this pivotal case, the Supreme Court ruled that digital inclusion is a constitutional obligation, not a policy choice. Citing Articles 14, 15, 21, and 38, the Court held that digital infrastructure must be inclusive, accessible, and non-discriminatory.

Key directives from the ruling include:

• Overhaul of KYC norms to allow alternative modes of live verification
• Appointment of Digital Accessibility Nodal Officers in relevant institutions
• Mandatory accessibility audits at regular intervals
• Inclusion of user testing by persons with disabilities during app and portal development

The Court specifically highlighted that visual-based verification methods, like blinking and selfie capture, violate the dignity and rights of blind users and acid attack survivors.

WHY THIS JUDMENT MATTERS?

1. Constitutional Recognition of Digital Inclusion: This sets a precedent by formally recognizing digital access as a fundamental right, laying the groundwork for inclusive technology legislation.
2. Stronger Disability Rights: The judgment reinforces India’s commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the RPwD Act, 2016.
3. Equitable Digital Transformation: It mandates a universal design approach in digital innovation, ensuring accessibility from the outset.
4. Accessible Governance: With accessible digital systems, persons with disabilities can now more effectively engage with e-governance, healthcare, education, and financial services.
5. Substantive Equality in Action: The verdict goes beyond formal equality, pushing for structural reforms to create truly inclusive digital ecosystems.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIRS

1. Exclusion in KYC Processes: Common digital KYC procedures—such as blinking for liveness detection, selfie verification, and OTP inputs—unintentionally exclude individuals with visual impairments, facial disfigurements, or motor disabilities.
2. Lack of Accessibility Compliance: Most KYC applications fail to adhere to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards. They often lack features such as screen reader compatibility, audio guidance, or alternative verification options.
3. Service Denial: Inaccessible KYC systems prevent persons with disabilities from accessing essential services such as banking, telecom, pensions, and welfare schemes.
4. Discriminatory Design: Failure to incorporate universal design principles violates Section 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates accessibility in all digital services.
5. Deepening the Digital Divide: The impact extends beyond persons with disabilities—rural populations, senior citizens, and linguistic minorities also face barriers, further widening the digital divide.

TOWARDS A MORE INCLUSIVE DIGITAL INDIA

This ruling represents a watershed moment in India’s digital governance landscape. It signals to both public and private institutions that inclusivity must be central to all digital initiatives. Banks, telecom operators, government portals, and fintech platforms will now need to redesign their systems keeping in mind the differently-abled, the digitally illiterate, and those living in connectivity-dark zones.

Moreover, the judgment compels policymakers to bridge the digital divide not just by distributing devices or offering internet access, but by designing human-centered digital ecosystems that work for everyone.

By recognizing digital access as intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21, the Supreme Court has catalyzed a paradigm shift in India’s constitutional and technological landscape. This ruling compels both public and private actors to treat accessibility not as an afterthought, but as a legal and moral imperative. In the digital age, bridging the accessibility gap is not optional—it is essential for safeguarding dignity, equity, and justice for all.