The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the combined cases of Amar Jain v. Union of India and Pragya Prasun & Ors v. Union of India & Ors on April 30, 2025. In this decision, the court decisively held that ‘inclusive and meaningful digital access’ constitutes an essential element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that the State is duty-bound to ensure a digital environment that is inclusive and accessible for marginalised, underprivileged, vulnerable, disabled, and historically excluded groups in society. Through this ruling, the court not only acknowledged the challenges posed by rapid digitalisation but also reinforced the State’s constitutional obligation to ensure that digital services and infrastructure are accessible to all. The verdict marks a fundamental shift in the interpretation of civil liberties in the digital age and mandates sweeping reforms across government and private sectors alike.
Background of the Case: Addressing the Digital Divide
The petitions in this case were initiated by individuals who faced substantial barriers in navigating digital systems. Amar Jain, a visually impaired lawyer, and Pragya Prasun, an acid-attack survivor, joined other petitioners in highlighting the exclusionary nature of digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes, which are increasingly required for accessing banking, telecommunications, government subsidies, welfare schemes, and more.
Justice Mahadevan stated that modern electronic-KYC (e-KYC) systems often necessitate live photographs, blinking and facial orientation, requirements that are either impossible or extremely difficult for individuals with visual impairments, facial disfigurements, or other disabilities.
The design of such systems, without consideration for diverse abilities, effectively denied access to essential services and infringed upon the right to dignity and equality. The Supreme Court observed that closing the digital divide is no longer just a policy choice, it has become a constitutional obligation essential for upholding dignity, personal autonomy, and equal participation in public life.
The court further noted that this issue extends beyond people with disabilities. It affects other vulnerable groups such as the elderly, rural residents and economically marginalised communities who struggle with limited infrastructure, low digital literacy and language barriers such as scarcity of content in regional languages. The failure to incorporate universal design principles and conduct accessibility audits has created systemic exclusions, violating not only Article 21 (right to a dignified life) but also Articles 14 (equality), Articles 15 (prohibition of discrimination) and 38 (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution. The court issued 20 directives to the government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) aimed at enhancing the digital KYC process. These include conducting regular accessibility audits and ensuring the involvement of persons with disabilities during the testing and development stages of digital platforms, such as applications and websites.
Know Your Customer (KYC): Digital Financial Governance
The KYC process is a mandatory identity verification mechanism employed by financial and non-financial institutions prior to account opening or service access. It involves validating identity, address, and photographs through officially valid documents (OVDs).
In the digital age, digital KYC enables electronic verification using Aadhaar-based authentication, e-documents, and biometrics, promoting efficiency and inclusivity.
To streamline compliance, the Central KYC Records Registry (CKYCRR) was established under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 allowing authorised entities regulated by the RBI, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEB1), and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) to access and reuse standardised KYC records.
The registry is maintained by the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI), a Government of India company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, which also oversees the KYC Registry under the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005.
Together, these institutions strengthen financial transparency, reduce duplication, and enhance the ease of doing business in a digitally driven economy.
A Constitutional Analysis: Substantive Equality and the Right to Access
The ruling draws heavily from constitutional jurisprudence, especially the expanded interpretation of Article 21, which now encompasses rights essential for a dignified life in a digital society. Central to the Court’s reasoning is the concept of substantive equality, a departure from the traditional notion of formal equality.
While formal equality treats all individuals identically, substantive equality requires affirmative action to rectify existing disparities. The court emphasised that technological advancement must not result in digital marginalisation. Digital platforms must not only exist but must be usable, accessible and understandable to everyone, including persons with disabilities.
In evaluating the validity of current e-KYC systems, the court invoked the doctrine of proportionality, which requires any limitation on fundamental rights to be reasonable, fair, and non-arbitrary. The court found that the current methods of identity verification failed this test, as they imposed disproportionate burdens on certain groups, rendering them discriminatory in nature.
Additionally, the court highlighted the ‘pari materia’ interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Act mandates reasonable accommodations and non-discriminatory access, which the court has now elevated to constitutional status, reinforcing the idea that accessible digital services are not just statutory rights but fundamental constitutional entitlements.
(Pari Materia refers to laws or provisions addressing the same issue. In legal interpretation, such statutes are read together to ensure consistency, resolve ambiguities, and upheld a coherent legal framework.)
The Court’s Structural Remedies and Directives
Instead of offering a narrow, case-specific resolution, the court issued 20 broad and systemic directives, amounting to a ‘structural injunction’. Some of these directives are given below and apply to both public institutions and private entities delivering digital services, calling for:
- Revision of RBI’s e-KYC guidelines to include alternative liveness checks
- Mandatory accessibility audits of digital platforms
- Implementation of universal design principles
- Designation of nodal officers to oversee digital accessibility
- Provisions for alternative modes of digital authentication for those unable to complete standard e-KYC
- Regular training and sensitisation of officials
- Inclusion of accessibility standards in public procurement policies
These measures reflect a transition from mere non-interference by the State to its affirmative duty to ensure inclusivity in digital governance. The court’s use of terms like ‘digital inclusion’, ‘e-governance’ and ‘universal design’ signifies the evolution of constitutional language to meet the challenges of a digital society.
Precedents and Legal Foundations Expanding the Scope of Article 21
The judgment is grounded in a long line of constitutional decisions that have progressively expanded the scope of fundamental rights. The court carefully referenced several significant past judgments, illustrating how fundamental rights have developed over time in India.
Notable cases cited or referred to include:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) This foundational case redefined Article 21 by requiring that any procedure affecting life or liberty be ‘fair, just, and reasonable’. The court used this standard to critique the digital KYC processes, which failed to meet this threshold for people with disabilities.
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014) In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recognised transgender individuals as the ‘third gender’ and affirmed that they are entitled to the same fundamental rights as all citizens, with a strong emphasis on dignity and non-discrimination. Though not directly related to digital rights, this landmark case established principle of substantive equality and the rights of marginalised groups, reinforcing the idea that the State must enable full societal participation.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) This case recognised the right to privacy as intrinsic to Article 21. While Amar Jain primarily addresses digital access, it is closely connected to the broader concerns of personal dignity and autonomy in the digital realm—core themes emphasised in the Puttaswamy judgment. The exclusion of individuals from digital systems could unintentionally compromise their privacy, often compelling them to depend on others for access or to forgo essential services altogether.
- Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (2017) The Supreme Court directed online platforms to block content promoting pre-natal sex determination under the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, affirming the State’s duty to regulate digital spaces in line with constitutional and statutory obligations. This principle of digital accountability resonates with Amar Jain, where the court extended the State’s responsibility to ensure inclusive digital governance.
- Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala (2019) The Kerala High Court in this case was the first to declare that Internet access is vital for education and life under Article 21 and 21A of the Constitution. This aligns closely with the Supreme Court’s present stance. The judgment acted as a crucial forerunner, highlighting the growing acknowledgment of digital rights within the Indian legal framework.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) This decision affirmed Internet access as a basic right under Articles, 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (right to pursue trade or business). Amar Jain builds on this precedent by stressing that access must also be inclusive and effective, not just available, while Anuradha Bhasin centred on the general right to internet access.
- Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) The Supreme Court held that reasonable accommodations are a right, not charity. This concept was central to the current judgment, particularly in demanding systemic reforms to digital platforms. This judgment laid a foundational basis for the Amar Jain case by underscoring the need for structural reforms to enable fair and equal participation of individuals with disabilities.
- Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024) In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court directed all public institutions to ensure physical and digital accessibility in compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court held that the absence of accessibility features constitutes indirect discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. This precedent directly shaped the Amar Jain ruling by recognising accessible digital infrastructure as a constitutional obligation essential for substantive equality.
Together, these cases provided a strong legal foundation for expanding the scope of Article 21 to include meaningful digital participation.
Implications for Policy and Governance
The Supreme Court’s directives are more than legal pronouncements; they form a roadmap for digital transformation.
Key policy implications include:
- Reform of e-KYC Procedures Revise existing e-KYC norms to eliminate practices that exclude individuals with disabilities or other marginalised groups.
- Inclusive Design Mandate for Financial Entities Require the India RBI and all regulated entities, including banks and fintech platforms, to develop and maintain digital systems that are accessible to all users.
- Legal Compliance with Disability Rights Ensure that all digital platforms and services comply fully with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
- Appointment of Accessibility Officers Designate nodal officers in every government department to oversee and enforce digital accessibility standards.
- Routine Accessibility Audits Implement regular accessibility evaluations conducted by certified experts to identify and address barriers in digital systems.
- Focus on Substantive Equality Reaffirm that digital innovation must go hand in hand with promoting substantive equality and full inclusion across all sections of society.
This judgment further compels India to align its domestic laws with its international obligations, particularly under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 to which India is a signatory.
A Step towards an Inclusive Digital Future
The Amar Jain ruling is a significant leap forward in Indian constitutional law. By recognising inclusive digital access as a fundamental right, the court not only closed a major gap in rights protections but also set the tone for future judicial and policy responses to technological advancements.
This decision marks a paradigm shift—from viewing digital access as a convenience to treating it as a constitutional guarantee. It underscores that equity in access must be a central tenet of any digital policy and that failure to accommodate diverse needs is a violation of basic human dignity.
Conclusion
In redefining the boundaries of Article 21, the Supreme Court’s verdict in Amar Jain v. Union of India case has opened a new chapter in the struggle for an inclusive and accessible India. The judgment reflects a nuanced understanding of the real-world impact of technology and the responsibility of both State and society to prevent digital systems from becoming instruments of exclusion.
By affirming that digital access must be universal, usable and fair, the Court has elevated this issue to a constitutional priority. While putting these directives into practice may pose considerable challenges, the judgment provides a well-defined path towards building a genuinely inclusive digital society. It ensures that no one is left behind as India advances towards a digitally empowered future. The ruling not only advances the rights of persons with disabilities but also strengthens India’s commitment to justice, equality, and human dignity in the digital age.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
