What does it say about India’s legal system when a visually impaired person and the survivor of an acid attack are forced to litigate for years to be able to complete a basic KYC procedure to access banking and financial services?
On April 30, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Pragya Prasun vs Union of India and issued 20 directions to the Reserve Bank of India and other financial institutions to make e-KYC systems accessible to persons with disabilities.
KYC, or Know Your Customer, is a regulatory process that financial institutions use to verify the identity of their customers before allowing access to services like opening bank accounts, investing, or using digital wallets. Customers have to submit documents such as Aadhaar, PAN card, photograph, and biometric data. But sometimes it may also require further authentication such as blinking eyes or handwritten signatures, that are not accessible for persons with disabilities.
Privilege of blinking
The petitioners were forced to knock on the country’s highest judicial door to access what millions take for granted: use financial services that mandatorily require e-KYC.
The verification process required customers to blink their eyes, which the petitioners said they cannot do. The process had no provisions for thumb impressions, which people with visual impairments rely on instead of written signatures.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, firmly stated that digital accessibility is a part and parcel of the right to life and liberty.
In the past, too, the Indian judiciary has affirmed disability inclusion, accessibility and reasonable accommodation as a core part of constitutional rights. Courts have reiterated that this is covered by Articles 14, 19, and 21, which encapsulate the right to equality, expression and a dignified life.
Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act obligates the central government to formulate accessibility standards on information and communication technology. Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, amended in 2023, provides the specific web accessibility standards that must be complied with.
Yet, disabled litigants are forced to plead and litigate for basic digital inclusion – over and over again.
What, then, is the point of precedent if every platform, agency and ministry acts as though previous judicial rulings do not apply to them until personally sued?
Court rules, platforms stall
This situation came evident in 2024 when a colleague was mistreated by an Uber driver because of their disability. We went to the Delhi High Court to seek directions to the platform to incorporate accessibility features in the app, facilitate driver sensitisation and set up a working grievance redressal mechanism.
The company eventually agreed to incorporate some of our inputs on accessibility and accommodation.
But this was not a novel demand. In a 2023 case against ride-hailing app Rapido, a court-ordered accessibility audit revealed 170 errors on the app, including 81 major failures in the most basic accessibility standards.
These included unlabeled buttons, inaccessible booking interfaces and features that screen readers used by the visually impaired could not interpret, making the app virtually unusable for blind users. Rapido’s defence that it was a small start-up lacking funds was rejected by the Delhi High Court. It warned the company to fix its accessibility barriers within four months or stop operating in India altogether.
Before that, in the case of Akshat Baldwa vs Yash Raj Films in 2023, the petitioners – three of whom were visually impaired and one hearing impaired – approached the Delhi High Court seeking accessibility measures for the film Pathaan.
They argued that the absence of audio descriptions, subtitles, and sign language interpretation violated their rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court directed Yash Raj Films to comply with accessibility rules and instructed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to issue binding accessibility standards.
Despite drafts of guidelines circulated in 2019 and 2021, these accessibility standards have not been notified, even after the court’s directions. This implies that the standards or rules are not legally binding on broadcasters.
One study found that sign language captioning that involves speech being translated to text in real time is present in only 8% of TV serials made in the top five Indian languages. This hinders equal access for persons with hearing impairments.
Channels such as Colors TV, Sun TV, and Udaya TV have not implemented any shows with sign language captioning. Even Doordarshan, the government-owned broadcaster, has failed to comply with the accessibility standards.
Precedent is not prevention
There is a growing gap between what the law says and how the digital world operates. Law students are taught that precedents, or past rulings, are meant to prevent repetition of similar legal violations and injustices. But in the realm of disability rights, they function more like bookmarks – as evidence of prior injustice, not deterrents to future harm.
Despite all the court orders, the number of accessible central government websites has been stuck at 95 since 2020 out of a total number close to 6,700. Just 7% of websites of states or Union territories meet accessibility standards. The Unique Identification Authority of India’s Aadhaar portal added an audio facility for the CAPTCHA authentication feature only after complaints – and even then, the button to activate it cannot be accessed via a keyboard.
Education and employment platforms fare no better. The Indira Gandhi National Open University’s eGyanKosh that publishes educational material, the application portal for the University Grants Commission-National Eligibility Test and the National Testing Agency’s results websites remain hostile to screen readers used by the visually impaired.
Even the government’s flagship accessibility programme – Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan – has seen its budget slashed for three years in a row. India is cutting funds for inclusion while expanding the digital state.
Fintech and e-commerce giants such as Zerodha, Cred, Amazon and Flipkart are all under regulatory scrutiny for poor accessibility standards.
Despite clear directions from law enforcement authorities and mounting data, this year again, blind users had to move the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities against 155 platforms, including government establishments, private firms, and central ministries, demanding digital accessibility.
In response, the commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 on all respondents and stated that non-compliance beyond the deadline of February 28, could lead to higher penalties. As of May 5, 85 of these entities have not even responded to the Commission’s notice penalising them.
None of the laws and precedents seem to matter to companies because accessibility is still perceived as a favour, not as a legal obligation. As a person with disability and as a lawyer, I would like to emphasise: we are not asking for charity, we are simply asking for legal compliance.
Accessibility is not charity. It’s not “extra effort”. It is infrastructure for dignity: for the blind student applying for an exam. For the deaf moviegoer. For the disabled lawyer researching a case. For every Indian who has the right to participate fully in our digital society.
India cannot call itself a digital superpower while its digital public square excludes millions by design. Precedent without enforcement is just paper. Otherwise, what is really the point of precedent?
Anchal Bhatheja is a Research Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and a Consultant at Mission Accessibility.
Video: Why activists unable to blink an eye went to court against E-KYC
