Published On: March 9th 2026
Authored By: Aastha
Himachal Pradesh National Law University Shimla
ABSTRACT
The era of 21st century is also regarded as era of Digital Age as continuous development and progress in technology has strengthened the individual and covered a long distance from primitive technology to digital access and use of technology. The outcomes of use of technology are beneficial for Individual. The modern governments have adopted digital governance to provide basic services and do welfare of its individual. The title of my article is “OFFLINE IS THE NEW INEQUALITY” which is apt to my content as today world is regarded as modern and digital world and the one who is unaware of Digital technology and its use or access faces inequality. The one who is unable to cope with the pace to digital technology faces inequality or discrimination. It may be counted as a negative by product Digitalization.
The article studies the landmark case of [1]Amar Jain v. Union of India (2025) which attempts to examine how people face discrimination and inequality in the age of Digitalization and how Digital Access is granted as the status of Fundamental Right under article 21 of Constitution of India. The decision of SC marked a landmark decision by understanding the importance and necessity to regard Digital access as a basic right of Individual. This judgement strengthens the rights of disabled and expands the scope of constitutional protection. The article explores the legal development and its significance that to what extent it was necessary to acknowledge digital access as a crucial element to determine its validity. Through this article I was able to understand the issues faced the those who are offline i.e. who are not aware of digitalization or do not possess specific knowledge due to lack to education, poverty, infrastructural shortcoming, lack of access or tools for digitalization.
The article underscores accessibility is not matter of convenience but it the obligation mandated by constitution rooted in principle of equality and non- discrimination.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades India has witnessed a major shift in its method of governance, administration and justice which has reshaped or transformed the whole working of government and its relationship with citizens. The 21st Century is also regarded as ‘DIGITAL AGE’ as from welfare of people through policies to application of documents to reap the benefit each and every process is digitalized by the government and hence, digital platforms remain important and crucial for governance and administration. Many initiatives like E-Aadhaar, Mobile Banking, E- KYC, online dispute resolution have redefined the traditional method of welfare by government replacing it by easy and quick responses. This reduces inconvenience of people. But along with this people faces issues in reaping the benefits from digital services due to lack of digital access, infrastructure, resources and knowledge. The benefits remain limited to resourceful people and not to those who remain discriminated solely due to their economic, physical, infrastructural or other limitations. This article explores the perspectives of those who face discrimination and exclusion due to rise in digital governance by analyzing the legal development under the landmark judgement on AMAR JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA.
DIGITAL GOVERNANCE AND EXCLUSION
Every coin has two sides and similarly every policy and initiatives consists of both pros and cons. The revolution in Digital world & technology has produced positive results but parallelly this move has exposed people to structural inequality too. The reports shows that 26-30% adult of India are still illiterate which mean around 313 million youth of India is unable to cope with or catch the pace to growing digital economy & technology. A large section of society still faces issues and barriers to access digital services. This phenomenon is also known as ‘DIGITAL EXCLUSION’ which continuously raises concerns. Today almost all essential services are digitalized like education, healthcare, economic etc. and due to this many people are prevented from using and accessing those services. This digital transformation raises a key concern of ‘DIGITAL ACCESSBILITY’ as there are many digital services of government and private users which are carried out on digital platforms and these platforms are not designed or devised in such a way that other people like those who are disabled or have lack of knowledge could access those services. The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental right to its citizens for free and equal access to opportunities and equality before law this exclusion results in exclusion from basic needs and services for humans and emerges as a Constitutional concern which also amounts to violation of Fundamental right of an Individual.
CASE FACTS: AMAR JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA (2025)
Amar Jain v. Union of India is the land mark case of India under which SC ruled that Digital Access is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. According to the facts of the case Amar Jain was a visually challenged advocate with complete impairment. Along with him Pragya Prasun was an acid attack survivor who was not able to compete the E-KYC process as “IT INCLUDED UPLOADING A LIVE BLINKING PHOTO”. Amar Jain filed case under which he highlighted the barriers repeatedly faced by users in accessing digital services for example, E-KYC, limited time for OTPs and biometric verification etc. He pleaded that the digital services provided by private users and government on digital platforms are inherently inaccessible for people suffering from any limitation, suffering, visual impairment or disability. This restricts the users from reaping benefit from welfare schemes of govt. which are digitalized and result in digital exclusion. This amounts to violation of [2]Article 21 i.e. right to life and personal liberty, [3]Article 14 which provides right to equality and [4]Article 15 along with [5]violation of rules under Right of Person with Disabilities, 2016. Through this case Amar Jain attempted to raise a core issue faced by the people for those digital services are inaccessible. As KYC is a mandatory process to be done for opening bank Account and such vital services are digitalized creating inequal treatment and discrimination for those who can’t access it. The core legal issue was whether Digital access is part of fundamental right under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
JUDGEMENT THAT CHANGED DIGITAL ACCESS
By analyzing the issues and arguments on 30th April, 2025 the Supreme Court Acknowledged the Right to Digital Access as Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Indian Constitution which guarantees right to life and personal liberty. The court ruled that in a world where digital platforms are required to access basic services like healthcare, banking, education and welfare [6]schemes of the government which denies equal access to digital content amounts to exclusion and Discrimination. The court laid down that state must guarantee equal access of digital content to everyone and particularly to those with disabilities. Such access by government is matter of right rather than charity. [7]The court issued 20 directions to revise e-KYC norms to ensure accessibility for those groups who face challenges in biometric verification. This PIL highlighted the barriers in system and obliged state to create an inclusive digital ecosystem.
LEGAL PRECEDENTS SHAPING DIGITAL RIGHTS
The Landmark judgement of Amar Jain v. Union of India acted as a corner stone for people who faced discrimination and barriers in accessing Digital Services equally. Further this case is not alone a judgement which shaped and regulated digital access but other landmark judgements which helped and acted as guardian of securing digital rights of Individual in modern world.
[8]Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) which acted as a protector for those voices who express their opinions and ideas through digital mode i.e. Internet. Under this landmark case ruling the Supreme court held that internet access is essential to exercise the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression under article 21 of Constitution. The court recognized internet as a vital and crucial tool to exercise freedom of speech and expression along with business under [9]Article 19 (1)(a) &(g). under this the court also held that indefinite shutdowns are unconstitutional and any sort of restrictions on internet must pass through strict tests.
[10]Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) was landmark ruling of Kerala High Court where the Kerela HC became first in India to maintain and recognize that Right to Internet Access is part of Article 21 i.e. right to life and Article 21A i.e. right to education of Indian Constitution. The court observed the growing importance of Internet and Digitalization in modern era and hence, making restrictions on it act as a significant hurdle in path of development of the citizens. The outcome of this ruling was the HC directed the educational institutions to implement the rules recognizing the need of Digital Access for all the students in Institutions.
These major landmark rulings later acted as precedent and secured the digital rights of citizens.
LEGAL IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE
The SC Judgement in the Landmark Case of Amar Jain v. Union of India acted and proved as a major milestone achieved by Indian Judiciary. The duty of Indian Judiciary is to provide Independent and Fair justice without any biasness. The end goal is to achieve justice and protection of rights of individual. This landmark case addressed a core underlying issue beneath the digital access of services in India. Also, by acknowledging Digital Access as Fundamental Right under article 21 of Indian Constitution the Indian judiciary strengthened and expanded the scope of constitutional protections under technological changes and advancements.
From the view point of Legal Development there was a major legal development of incorporation of Digital Access as a fundamental right under article 21 and which covered diverse aspect of digital access including digital services, digital platforms, digital infrastructure etc. The case also challenged the provision of e-KYC including discriminatory procedures like those which requires blinking of eyes for photo as they exclude persons with visual impairment or disability. It promoted equality among the procedures and equal opportunity for disabled persons. Similarly, made state accountable and responsible to strengthen the accessibility of digital technology to all without any biasness as a right not as charity and strengthening rights of disabled persons.
It covered a broader aspect of significance in term of digital access to everyone. Now, digital access acts as a fundamental right which state requires to protect and maintain as fundamental rights of an Individual can’t be violated. This led a shift in Digital Governance it acted as a precedent binding and compelling the state and private service providers to create an inclusive digital framework to ensure that inaccessible systems can’t led to violation of rights of Individual. Also, like other landmark cases which acted as guiding light for current & future cases this case will also act as an essential judgement to guide the future cases and ensure justice. Along with this the SC also laid guidelines for strengthening of guidelines for disabled persons to ensure equal justice and protection of their rights.
CONCLUSION
The judgement acted as an essential step taken by judiciary to secure and carry forward equal access to digital technology and societies. This aimed to reform the shortcomings of digital governance and attempted to protect & secure the rights in individual in digital world. The case of Amar Jain serves as a reminder that development can’t be done in isolation it is necessary to recognize and carry each aspect ensuring no person left behind in the age of Digitalization.
REFERENCES
[1] Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., W.P(C) No. 49 (2025) INSC 599 (SC of India Apr. 30, 2025)
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 21
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 14
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 15
[5] Rights of Person with Disabilities Rules, 2016, G.S.R. 591(E) (Ind.), notified in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Pt. II, Sec. 3(i) (Jun. 15, 2017)
[6] Digital Access as part of Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty, Drishti IAS (May 1, 2025), available at https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/digital-access-as-a-part-of-fundamental-right-to-life-and-liberty
[7] Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 993 (Apr. 30, 2025)
[8] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2020 S.C 1308 (Supreme Court Jan. 10, 2020)
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 19 (1) (a) & (g)
[10] Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala & Ors., W.P (C) No. 19716 of 2019 AIR 2020 Kerala 35 (Kerala H.C Sept.19, 2019)
