Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors

1. CASE INFORMATION

• Citation: 2025 INSC 599
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Division bench
• Date of Pronouncement: 30^th April, 2025

 2. FACTUAL MATRIX

• The Present petition was filed as a civil writ petition under article 32 of Indian constitution empowering the Supreme Court to hear matter. Under this A civil writ petition no. 49 of 2025 was filed by petitioner Amar Jain and it was heard along another civil writ petition no. 289 filed in 2024 by Petitioner [2]Pragya Prasun and Ors. Against the Union of India and Ors.
• The petitioners of W.P(C) No. 289 of 2024 were Acid Attack Victims, who suffers from facial disfigurement and severe eye burns and another petitioner of W.P(C) No. 49 of 2025 was suffering from 100% blindness.
• The writ petitions were filed seeking directions to the various respondents to formulate appropriate rules and guidelines for conducting Digital KYC/ e-KYC/ Video KYC process through alternative methods, with view of creating the process more inclusive and accessible for all persons suffering for disability and particularly for acid attack survivors suffering from permanent facial/eye disfigurement and similarly placed individual with blindness and low vision adhering with [3]Rights of person with disabilities Rules (2017), and [4]Article 21 of Indian Constitution.  
• The Digital KYC processes are based on Biometric authentication where it requires ‘Face Recognition, Live capture of Facial expressions, camera-based authentication, clicking of selfies, OTP Verification in 30 Sec., flashing of random and generic codes, Digital Signatures’ etc. which is proven to be inherently inaccessible for those who suffer from facial disfigurement, blindness and other disabilities making impossible for them to complete formalities.
• Therefore, the petitioners argued and attacked the technological inaccessibility faced by Disabled persons and creating new forms of exclusion from social participation. Also, they argued that the Administrative and regulatory bodies have failed to implement the protocols and standards maintained under Rules of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 along with Article 21 of Indian Constitution with provide Right to Life and Liberty.

3. LEGAL ISSUES

• Whether the existing designed mechanism of mandatory Digital KYC violates the Fundamental Right of persons with disabilities by denying their meaningful access to essential services which are digitalized.
• Whether failure to provide accessibility and reasonable accommodation to Disabled persons under platforms incorporating Digital KYC processes amounts to discrimination under Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
• Whether the Statutory obligations stated under the Rights of Persons with Disability (RPwD) Act, 2016 impose binding duty on state and regulatory authorities to ensure accessible digital authentication system.

4. CONTENTION OF PARTIES

Petitioner’s Contention

• The petitioner raised a complex constitutional and statutory challenge infront of the Hon’ble Court. Firstly, the petitioner argued on the discrimination faced by Disabled Personas while accessing digital essential services like E-KYC and their mechanism & processes. As these platforms exposes persons with disabilities to experience difficulties in completing e-KYC processes due to their inability to click a “live photograph” by blinking, facing daily challenges to avail services necessary for bank accounts and telecom services.
• Secondly, Petitioner contended that the e-KYC process challenges the validity and violates the [5]Article 14 of Indian Constitution which is regarded as a Fundamental Right of Individual which provides “equality before law” that everyone should be treated equal without any discrimination but the digital services provided through platforms are not designed to incorporate every aspect of individual creating unreasonable classification between abled and specially abled persons, leaving Disabled persons discriminated. The petitioner further stated that the RBI master Directions, 2016 has made digital KYC processes mandatory in major sectors like banking, telecommunication etc. not accessible to persons with disabilities especially for individuals with facial disfigurements and visual impairments.
• Thirdly, the petitioner argued that digital KYC processes exclude persons with disabilities from enjoyment of such essential services amounting to violation fundamental rights enshrined under of Article 21 of Constitution of India which protects right of life and liberty of person and the digital freedom is also an aspect of right to life and exclusion from such digital infrastructure and mechanisms impairs personal liberty and human dignity.
• Also, elaborating further the digital KYC includes processes like clicking of selfies, facial recognition, verification of OTP valid only for 30 seconds, random questions like flashing of generic codes to be read by customer etc. are not accessible for person with blindness and other disability making it impossible for them to complete formalities without physical assistance and therefore it amounts to violation of statutory duty of government to implement “reasonable accommodations” in accordance with provisions of RPwD Act, 2016 read with the RPwD Rules, 2017

 Respondent’s Contention

• The Union of India, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulatory authorities defended their stance on digital KYC framework by proving the necessity for public interest and public welfare.
• The RBI contended that digital KYC processes were mandated for protection of public interest with an intention to prevent cases of money laundering and to combat and prevent channelizing of money into illegal activities, terror funding and other economic crimes including the implementation [6]PMLA Act, 2002 necessary to deter crime and fraud and further acc. To rules every banking company is required to conduct client due diligence at time to commencement of account-based relationship.
• The respondents further submitted that other mechanisms such as OTP-based authentication, offline verification options, assisted Video based Customer Identification process (VCIP) and other options already existed as an alternative to e-KYC process and stated that issue of accessibility for disabled persons arise due to gaps in implementation rather from the mechanism and framework alone.
• Also, it is contended that the regulatory authorities are consistently working to enhance the mechanism and have argued that guidelines have already allowed for PwD inclusion and hare also fulfilling state’s obligation under the acts and rules. The Institutions like RBI, SEBI, TRAI etc. are continuously enhancing the mechanism and incorporating each and every aspect of human life and dignity.

5. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT

• Accessibility as an Aspect of Constitutional Equality: The supreme court rejected the argument of the respondents and held that such barriers significantly hinder the ability of persons with disabilities to learn, work, engage with society, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity and full participation as guaranteed under UNCRPD and national disability laws. The barriers collectively amount to denial of equal access and violate accessibility under RPwD Act, 2016 resulting in economic and social marginalization and to combat this government and private entities must ensure digital services comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and other accessibility standards. Thus, digital services are expected to be inclusive and accessible to all users, regardless of their ability and accessibility became constitutional necessity.
• Re Interpretation of Article 21: The court observed that in contemporary era essential services are increasingly accessible through digital platforms and therefore the Right to Life under Article 21 must be re-interpreted in light of these technological realities as Digital Divide potentially does systematic exclusion and the principal of Substantive Equality must be transformed digitally to be inclusive and equitable.
• Mandatory performance of Statutory Obligations: The court stated that there are many individuals who encounter unique barriers in accessing online services like limited digital literacy, lack of connectivity, inaccessible websites etc. denying their meaningful access to e-governance. Therefore, the state obligation in such circumstances under Article 21 -read in conjunction with Article 14,[7]15 and [8]38 of Constitution must encompass responsibility to ensure that the digital infrastructure, govt. portals, online learning platforms, financial platforms are universally accessible, inclusive and responsible to needs of vulnerable population. The state must perform statutory obligations responsibly to design and implement inclusive digital ecosystem.

RATIO DECIDENDI: The Supreme Court of India affirms Digital Access as an essential aspect of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of Indian Constitution and stated that when digital services and infrastructure became necessary to access essentials services, then the state and regulatory authorities are obligated to ensure the accessibility of such mechanisms and services to persons with disabilities. Also, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and accessibility mounts to discrimination and violates Article 21 of Indian Constitution as well as RPwD Act, 2016.

6. RELIEF GRANTED AND DIRECTION ISSUED BY COURT

• That there must be mandatory compliance with the digital accessibility standards including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for all digital platforms.
• There must be adoption and incorporation of alternative modes for verification of ‘Liveness’ and facial recognition for conducting e-KYC.
• Clearer directions and guidelines and enhancement of OTP based e-KYC authentication during Digital KYC process.
• Establishing of effective redressal mechanisms for grievances raised by customers and conducting training programs related to disability solutions in digital platforms for officials.
• There must be incorporation of assistive technology and human assistance in e-KYC processes.    

[1] Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 INSC 599

[2] Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 INSC 599

[3] Rights of Person with Disabilities Rules, 2017, GSR 591 (E) Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, June 15, 2017

[4] Article 21, India Const.

[5] Article 14, India Const.

[6] Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 (Act. No. 15 of 2003), INDIA CODE (2002)

[7] Article 15, India Const.

[8] Article 32, India Const.