The Supreme Court of India, in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India ((2025) 7 SCC 191), declared that the right to digital access is an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan issued 20 binding directions overhauling the digital Know Your Customer (KYC) infrastructure to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, particularly those with facial disfigurements and visual impairments.
Background
The petitioner, Pragya Prasun, is an acid attack survivor with facial disfigurement. In July 2023, she attempted to open a bank account at an ICICI Bank branch but was unable to complete the digital KYC process because the verification system required her to blink for a live photograph — an action she could not perform due to her injuries. She faced similar barriers when attempting to purchase a SIM card. The inability to access basic financial and telecommunication services led her to approach the Supreme Court.
The case brought into focus a systemic gap in India's digital identity architecture. While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandates accessibility in public services, the digital KYC mechanisms deployed by banks, telecom operators, and other service providers had not been designed to accommodate persons with facial disfigurements, visual impairments, or motor disabilities that prevent standard biometric interactions.
Key Holdings
The Court issued 20 directions, with the following principal mandates:
Alternative liveness verification: The Reserve Bank of India must issue revised guidelines incorporating alternative methods to verify liveness during the e-KYC process, moving beyond the default requirement of eye blinking. These alternatives must accommodate persons who cannot perform standard facial gestures.
Thumb impression authentication: Entities conducting digital KYC must accept thumb impressions as valid authentication for visually impaired users, providing an accessible alternative to photograph-based verification.
Human review of rejected applications: Banks and financial institutions must establish a mechanism for human review of KYC applications that are rejected by automated systems, ensuring that technology failures do not result in service denial for persons with disabilities.
Accessible helplines and grievance redressal: All regulated entities must set up dedicated helplines and grievance redressal mechanisms for persons with disabilities who face barriers in the digital KYC process.
Right to digital access as fundamental right: The Court declared that digital access constitutes an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that systematic exclusion from digital services on account of disability amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment establishes a constitutional foundation for digital accessibility that extends well beyond the KYC context. By grounding digital access in Article 21, the Court has created a framework that can be invoked to challenge exclusionary design in any government or regulated digital service — from Aadhaar-linked welfare delivery to online dispute resolution platforms.
For banks and financial institutions, the immediate obligation is operational: KYC systems must be redesigned to include alternative verification pathways. Technology vendors providing biometric and liveness detection solutions will need to update their products to comply with these directions.
Disability rights practitioners now have a powerful precedent linking digital inclusion to fundamental rights, moving the discourse beyond the statutory framework of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 into the broader constitutional guarantee of Article 21. This elevates the legal standard from reasonable accommodation to a rights-based entitlement, which carries significantly stronger enforcement consequences.