Delhi High Court | Accessibility for Visually Impaired Must Guide Future Currency and Banking Standards | Directions Issued Under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of multiple writ petitions concerning the accessibility of currency notes and digital financial services for visually impaired persons. The Court directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to ensure strict implementation and monitoring of accessibility standards across banks, including submission of six-monthly compliance reports. The petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raised issues under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court declined to issue a mandamus directing immediate redesign or withdrawal of the Rs.50 banknote, holding that such matters fall within the realm of policy-making.
Several writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising concerns over the accessibility of Indian currency notes and financial services for visually impaired persons. The petitioners, including individuals and organizations such as the All India Confederation of the Blind and the Blind Graduates Forum of India, sought directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Union of India to ensure that banknotes, coins, and banking systems are easily identifiable and usable by persons with visual disabilities.
The petitions specifically requested withdrawal of inaccessible notes such as the ₹50 denomination lacking adequate identification marks, redesign of currency to include accessible features, and the formulation of standards under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Reliefs also included ensuring accessibility of banking websites, ATMs, point-of-sale devices, and introducing audits to secure compliance.
Considering the overlapping issues, the Court constituted a High Powered Committee in July 2022 to examine the grievances and recommend practical solutions. The Committee included representatives from RBI, IIT Delhi, visually impaired petitioners, and the Union of India. Its report, submitted in July 2023, recommended redesign of currency to include sustainable tactile features, phased replacement of inaccessible notes, use of durable materials, improvements to the MANI mobile application, and ensuring accessibility of the forthcoming Central Bank Digital Currency (e-Rupee).
The RBI filed a detailed reply in September 2023, outlining the complexities of redesigning currency, the costs involved, and the existing features incorporated for accessibility, such as intaglio printing, bleed lines, and tactile marks. It explained that redesigning notes is a lengthy process spanning several years and that feedback from associations of the visually impaired had been factored into the Mahatma Gandhi (New) Series. RBI also noted that work on the next series of banknotes was ongoing.
Subsequent Action Taken Reports in 2024 and 2025 detailed steps such as accessibility guidelines for payment systems, audits of digital services, inclusion of accessibility standards in banking documents, and pilot work on the digital rupee to incorporate assistive features.
The Court ultimately noted that statutory authorities had addressed many concerns. It directed RBI to ensure strict monitoring of compliance by banks through six-monthly reports, and observed that future currency designs must incorporate workable accessibility features consistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The Court recorded that “this Court is pained to observe at this juncture that it is unfortunate that judicial intervention is required in such matters when measures to ensure ease of accessibility for the specially-abled should be implemented in a proactive manner.” The Bench observed that the Committee’s recommendations extended beyond currency notes and included accessibility in digital banking services, cheques, and payment devices.
Regarding banknotes, the Court noted RBI’s statement that “designing of bank notes or effecting changes in bank notes is an extremely intricate and a prolonged process which is preceded by extensive study, conscious deliberations, technological consideration, security issues and an all pervasive outlook.” The Court further recorded RBI’s submissions that new series of banknotes are generally introduced once every 8–10 years after wide consultations and that introducing multiple series with different features could create more confusion than clarity.
On the MANI app, the Court recorded RBI’s position that it “is capable of identifying the banknotes by checking front or reverse side/part of the note including half folded notes at various holding angles and broad range of light conditions… the app also notifies the denomination in non-sonic mode such as vibration.”
With respect to digital currency, the Court noted that “the Digital Rupee has been operationalised in the retail segment in pilot mode… accessibility concerns of the differently abled, if any, would be comprehensively addressed and suitably factored, as per the available technology, before the final launch.”
The Bench recorded its considered opinion that “issues and concerns of the specially abled/visually impaired persons relating to Digital Accessibility have been addressed to a large extent and appear to have been implemented by some Banks.” It stated that RBI must ensure that the recommendations of the Committee are implemented and monitored across all regulated entities.
On the prayer for immediate redesign of the Rs.50 note, the Court observed that “printing of new currency notes after alignment with the suggestions of the Committee may entail huge costs running into thousands of crores and the recall and destruction of old/prevalent currency would itself entail huge costs and time.” It held that issuance of a mandamus was not possible, but directed that RBI and Government of India consider the Committee’s suggestions when new series of notes are printed in the future.
The Court directed that “RBI to ensure that the suggestions of the Committee as well as its own suggestions and directions issued to various Banks be scrupulously implemented and monitored or supervised by it.” It further ordered that “the RBI must obtain six (6) monthly reports from various banks as to the progress made by each of such Banks till it is finally implemented or the goal reached.”
“We can only observe that the RBI and the Government of India shall keep in mind and take into consideration the suggestions of the High Powered Committee as and when the Government of India and RBI decide to print fresh currency.” The Court noted that the next exercise of issuing new series of banknotes typically occurs once every ten years and must take into account the difficulties of visually impaired persons.
The Court also recorded that issues of digital currency accessibility fall within the realm of policy-making and cannot be directed through mandamus. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) 7 SCC 191, noting that appropriate directions had already been issued in related contexts such as accessible digital KYC processes.
“We thus, with fond hope and in positive anticipation of implementation of the suggestions of the High Powered Committee, dispose of the present Public Interest Petition.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Dandriyal (Petitioner in person), Ms. Mini Agrawal, Mr. Deepesh Aneja, Ms. Ila Sheel, Mr. S. Singh, Ms. Areyna Shruti.
For the Respondents: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, SPC with Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Ms. Esha Kumar; Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, CGSC with Mr. Piyush Yadav; Mr. Rajesh Gogna; Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma; Mr. Ramesh Babu, Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Jagriti Bharti, Ms. Tanya Chowdhary; Mr. Arjun Mitra.
Case Title: Rohit Dandriyal & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. & connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8523-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9728/2017, W.P.(C) 10727/2017, W.P.(C) 64/2019, W.P.(C) 694/2020
Bench: Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
