Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan examined the challenges faced by persons with disabilities in completing digital KYC procedures. The Court held that existing KYC requirements, which mandate live photographs and liveness detection processes, create unreasonable barriers for individuals with permanent facial disfigurement and blindness. Stating the need for inclusivity, the Court directed authorities to devise alternative, accessible methods to ensure compliance with statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Furthermore, it ordered all relevant regulatory bodies to sensitise officials, issue comprehensive guidelines, and eliminate discriminatory practices in the digital KYC process. The Court made it clear that persons with disabilities must be guaranteed equal access to essential services without being subjected to exclusionary or impractical verification methods.

Two writ petitions were filed raising similar grievances relating to accessibility barriers in the digital KYC process faced by persons with disabilities. Both petitions were heard together and disposed of through a common judgment.

Also Read: "Absence Of Motive Strengthens Insanity Defence": Supreme Court Modifies Conviction Of Mother Who Killed Two Daughters Under 'Invisible Influence

The petitioners in the first writ petition were acid attack survivors suffering from permanent facial disfigurements and severe eye burns. The petitioner in the second writ petition was a person suffering from one hundred percent blindness. Both petitioners contended that they were excluded from essential services due to the rigid requirements imposed by the existing digital KYC, e-KYC and Video KYC procedures. According to them, the process involved clicking live photographs, eye blinking, facial recognition, reading random text on a screen, and similar visual-based actions which were impossible for persons with visual impairments and facial disfigurements to complete independently. As a result, they faced difficulties in opening bank accounts, obtaining SIM cards, accessing financial services, and availing benefits under various government schemes. They argued that such exclusion from basic services amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners placed reliance on the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. They referred to sections which impose statutory obligations to provide reasonable accommodations and ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities. According to the petitioners, the current procedures lacked flexibility and failed to accommodate the specific needs of persons with permanent disabilities. They contended that this omission ran contrary to the legislative intent and constitutional mandate for equality and non-discrimination.

The prayers made by the petitioners were for comprehensive directions to be issued to various authorities. They sought formulation of guidelines that would enable alternative methods for persons with disabilities to complete the digital KYC, e-KYC and Video KYC procedures. They requested that service providers and regulated entities be mandated to adopt accessible and inclusive KYC processes. Furthermore, they called for clarification on the requirement of live photographs and the removal of criteria such as eye blinking and facial movements. They also sought recognition of thumb impressions and voice recognition as valid alternatives. Directions were also sought to sensitise officials and allow for offline or physical KYC procedures wherever necessary.

In response, the regulatory authorities filed their submissions. The Reserve Bank of India submitted that digital KYC is governed by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the KYC Master Directions issued in 2016. It clarified that the blinking of eyes was not specifically mandated under the guidelines. The RBI explained that alternative options such as offline KYC, video-based KYC and discretion for regulated entities were already provided.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India submitted that it had no jurisdiction over subscriber verification procedures as these were governed by the Department of Telecommunications. The Department of Telecommunications submitted that licenses issued under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 required subscriber verification. It noted that instructions had been issued to allow paper-based KYC procedures in exceptional cases and that following the grievance raised by the petitioners, instructions were issued in 2024 to permit persons with disabilities to complete KYC through paper-based methods.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India stated that in the securities market, digital KYC was only one of the modes available and was not mandatory. It submitted that offline KYC was always available. The Board stated that its guidelines and regulations permitted verification through various flexible mechanisms and assured that its systems were in line with accessibility requirements.

The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority submitted that it had issued guidelines allowing onboarding through offline methods, thumb impressions and paper-based KYC. It pointed to the accessibility guidelines issued by the Central Government and stated that these had been made applicable to its intermediaries.

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India submitted that digital KYC and video-based verification were not mandatory and were optional. It clarified that other alternatives including thumb impressions, offline verification and physical KYC remained available and in use.

While the regulatory authorities submitted that adequate alternatives already existed and steps had been taken to ensure accessibility, the petitioners disputed this claim. They contended that the alternatives were not uniformly followed by all regulated entities and that the existing options were neither effective nor accessible in practice. They pointed out gaps in implementation and cited the lack of accessible technology, inadequate sensitisation of officials and prohibition on third-party prompting during digital KYC processes as major barriers.

The petitioners stated that the live photograph and liveness detection requirements effectively excluded them from completing the digital KYC independently. They contended that these measures were applied uniformly without regard to the particular challenges faced by persons with blindness or facial disfigurements. They submitted that the regulatory framework did not define the concept of liveness and that in practice, regulated entities followed arbitrary and exclusionary methods. They further highlighted that biometric devices used for Aadhaar authentication lacked accessibility features and that applications and websites did not comply with applicable accessibility standards.

Both sides presented detailed arguments. The petitioners placed reliance on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar v Union Public Service Commission, Rajive Raturi v Union of India and Disabled Rights Group v Union of India, wherein the Court had underscored the importance of ensuring inclusion and providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities.

In light of the submissions made by both sides, the case raised critical questions about the discriminatory impact of current digital KYC procedures, the statutory obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and the adequacy of steps taken by authorities and service providers to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities.

The Court began its examination by outlining the issue before it. It observed "The instant case requires us to consider whether the prevailing KYC procedures, which impose requirements such as clicking live photographs and undergoing liveness detection measures, are exclusionary and discriminatory towards persons with disabilities." The Court recognised that while digital transformation was a positive step, it should not leave behind vulnerable sections of the population.

The petitioners argued that persons with visual impairment and acid attack survivors faced insurmountable barriers in complying with KYC processes. It was submitted that "Due to their inability to blink or show facial expressions, acid attack survivors face rejection while undergoing liveness detection." The petitioners with blindness stated that "the mandatory requirement of clicking live photographs and prohibiting prompting makes it impossible for visually impaired individuals to complete the process independently." They contended that this results in denial of services such as banking, telecommunications, pension, and other essential utilities.

The petitioners relied on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Referring to Section 2(y), the Court recorded "Reasonable accommodation means necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others." They urged the Court to enforce this legislative mandate to ensure their equal access to essential services.

In response, the authorities contended that alternative procedures were already available. The Reserve Bank of India submitted that "blinking or facial recognition is not mandatory and discretion is given to regulated entities to adapt procedures." It was further submitted that "offline KYC and Video Customer Identification Process are available alternatives." The Department of Telecommunications stated that "instructions were issued in 2024 to permit persons with disabilities to complete KYC through paper-based methods where required." The Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority also submitted that digital KYC was optional and alternatives existed in their sectors.

The Court carefully considered these submissions. It stated "While the respondents contend that alternatives exist, the lived realities of persons with disabilities suggest otherwise." The Court observed that accessibility was not merely about formal availability of alternatives, but also about practical ease of access. It stated "Persons with disabilities continue to face exclusionary barriers when attempting to access essential services."

Referring to obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the Court recorded "India is a signatory to the UNCRPD which mandates States Parties to take appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others to information and communications technologies and systems."

In dealing with the argument of the authorities that various modes existed, the Court observed "The right to access cannot be contingent on charity or discretion. It must be guaranteed by enforceable standards and uniform guidelines."

The Court further stated "The absence of uniform and mandatory guidelines across sectors results in a fragmented regulatory landscape which perpetuates exclusion." It noted that service providers often interpreted "live photograph" and "liveness detection" in arbitrary ways which posed challenges to disabled persons.

The Court discussed the issue of independence and dignity. It recorded "Requiring persons with disabilities to rely on others for completion of basic formalities such as KYC compromises their independence and violates their dignity."

Concluding, the Court stated "The right to dignity and equal access under Article 21 of the Constitution of India requires that digital platforms, including KYC processes, be made accessible and inclusive." It recorded "Reasonable accommodations must be built into the design of procedures and not be left to the discretion of individual service providers."

The Court thus rejected the authorities' claim that existing alternatives were sufficient. It stated "The absence of enforceable accessibility standards amounts to discrimination against persons with disabilities."

The Court, after detailed consideration of the submissions made by the parties and analysing the legislative and constitutional framework, issued multiple directions aimed at ensuring accessibility and inclusivity for persons with disabilities in Digital KYC processes.

The Court directed that all respondent authorities and ministries shall instruct all regulated entities, both government and private, to comply with prescribed accessibility standards. A nodal officer shall be appointed in every department responsible for ensuring digital accessibility compliance.

It was directed that all regulated entities shall undergo periodic accessibility audits by certified professionals. Persons with blindness shall be involved in the user acceptance testing phase while designing apps, websites, or launching new features.

The Court stated that the Reserve Bank of India must issue guidelines mandating all regulated entities to adopt and incorporate alternative modes for verifying liveness and capturing live photographs beyond the traditional methods such as blinking of eyes.

It was further directed that the Reserve Bank of India shall issue appropriate clarifications that customer due diligence and onboarding of new customers through video-based KYC or V-CIP procedures must be undertaken in a manner that does not impose mandatory eye blinking or similar requirements.

The Court ordered that KYC templates or customer acquisition forms shall be designed to capture disability type and percentage to provide accessible services or reasonable accommodations to such customers.

It was also directed that all regulated entities shall be required to accept thumb impressions as part of the Digital KYC process. The Reserve Bank of India was ordered to amend the KYC Master Directions to enhance OTP-based e-KYC as a viable alternative.

The Court ordered the Department of Telecommunications to amend its notification dated 05.12.2023 to continue permitting paper-based KYC as an accessible alternative.

The Court directed that sign language interpretation, closed captions, and audio descriptions shall be made available for visually and hearing-impaired users in the KYC process. It was ordered that alternative formats such as Braille, easy-to-read formats and voice-enabled services shall be developed to disseminate notifications and provide services.

It was held that all regulated entities must procure or design compliant devices, websites, and applications that meet accessibility standards for ICT products and services.

The Court stated that the authorities shall ensure that online services including e-governance platforms, digital payment systems, and e-launching platforms are accessible to persons with disabilities, thereby fostering a barrier-free environment.

It directed that all websites, mobile applications, and digital platforms must comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and national standards such as Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). It was recorded that adherence to Section 46 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is mandatory for government websites.

The authorities were instructed to issue guidelines to enable customers who have already completed KYC with one regulated entity to authorise sharing of such information through the Central KYC Registry.

The Court ordered the establishment of dedicated grievance redressal mechanisms to address accessibility issues faced by persons with disabilities during the KYC process. There shall also be mechanisms for human review of rejected KYC applications to override automated rejections where accessibility issues are involved.

It was directed that helplines shall be established to offer voice or video-based step-by-step assistance to persons with disabilities during the KYC process.

Also Read: “Unjust Enrichment from Interim Relief Cannot Be Permitted”: Calcutta High Court Upholds Carrier’s Right to Detention Charges, Orders Encashment of Bank Guarantee

Further, the Court directed that the Reserve Bank of India shall initiate public campaigns through press releases, advertisements and social media to raise awareness about alternative KYC methods and ensure widespread dissemination of information. It was also ordered that RBI shall mandate regulated entities to display notices regarding accessible KYC methods.

Finally, the Court directed that the respondent authorities must include disability awareness and training modules in e-learning programs for officials to sensitise them to the needs of persons with disabilities.

Recording the above directions, the Court concluded that both writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs was passed. Connected miscellaneous applications, if any, also stood disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR; Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Advocate; Ms. Nimisha Menon, Advocate; Ms. Yamina Rizvi, Advocate; Ms. Ishita Soni, Advocate; Ms. Pradnya Madan, Advocate; Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate; Mr. Pradyana Kaistha, Advocate; Ms. Anshala Verma, Advocate; Ms. Ila Shikhar Sheel, AOR; Mr. Amar Jain, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR; Ms. Nisha Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Jagriti Bharti, Advocate; Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR; Ms. Amrita Singh, AOR; Mr. Arjun Krishnan, AOR; Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate; Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Advocate; Mr. Anshul Saharan, Advocate.

Case Title: Pragya Prasun and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 599

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]