The story so far: On April 30, the Supreme Court (SC) directed revisions to Know-Your-Customer (KYC) digital norms to ensure accessibility for ‘persons with disabilities’ (PwD), reinterpreting Article 21 of the Constitution to encompass the ‘right to digital access’.

What laws safeguard rights of PwD?

The Constitution, through its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles, alongside disability statutes, obligates the state to adapt laws, policies, and infrastructure which allow PwDs to exercise their rights on par with others. Advancing these guarantees and giving effect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), India enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which adopted a ‘social-barrier’ approach that defines disability as arising from impairments, along with physical, mental, intellectual, social, and psycho-social obstacles which make full participation in society difficult.

Crucially, Section 42 of the RPwD Act, 2016, mandates ‘government measures’ to ensure that all audio, print, and electronic media are accessible; that electronic media includes audio description, sign-language interpretation, and captions; and that everyday electronic goods and equipment follow ‘universal-design’ principles.

Are KYC details mandatory?

To curb illegal finance and money laundering, the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (and its 2005 Rules) mandates every bank and financial institution to verify client identities, maintain comprehensive records, and report relevant information to the Financial Intelligence Unit. Consequently, digital KYC verification has become indispensable for a wide range of essential services — from opening a bank, demat or trading account to accessing SIM cards, pension schemes or insurance policies. It also unlocks government benefits — from national scholarships to Aadhaar-linked ‘direct benefit transfers’.

Building on this mandate, the RBI’s 2016 Master Direction on Know Your Customer (KYC) rules prescribe a Customer Due Diligence (CDD) framework and, via Clause 18, introduces Video-based Customer Identification Process (V-CIP), enabling remote customer verification through secure, real-time video interaction. Customers can prove their identity online by clicking a selfie; signing on a paper physically or digitally; printing and rescanning, or clicking a photo of the filled-in form; verifying OTPs in 30 seconds; and reading a random code flashed on the screen.

How does it affect PwDs?

Acid-attack survivors left with permanent ‘facial disfigurement’ and severe eye burns — and individuals with complete blindness or low vision — have filed writ petitions seeking directions to respondents, including RBI, the Department of Telecommunications and SEBI, to devise alternative digital KYC, e-KYC and video-KYC methods to make remote identity checks inclusive for all PwDs as they face significant hurdles under the current framework.

Currently, each ‘regulated entity’ has to devise its own tests. Methods such as eye-blinking, reading a flashing code, or writing it down and taking a selfie exclude blind users. Despite clear mandates in the 2021 and 2022 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards, most KYC apps and websites flout them — there is no screen-reader prompt for camera alignment, no audio cues for lighting or focus, and no way to differentiate document sides during upload. Additionally, thumb impressions, commonly used by visually impaired users, are not accepted as valid signatures, nor are PAN cards issued with them. Aadhaar-based biometric systems worsen the exclusion. Scanners and interfaces lack basic ‘accessibility’ features such as ‘text-to-speech’ or ‘self-verification’. As a result, blind applicants are frequently asked to appear in person or are rejected on vague technical grounds. The RBI’s Master Directions also bar any form of ‘prompting’ during KYC verification, leaving users without assistance.

How has the SC intervened?

The SC has consistently held that accessibility for PwDs is a ‘constitutional imperative’. In Rajive Raturi versus Union of India (2024), it ruled that ‘accessibility’ is central to the right to life, dignity, and freedom of movement under Article 21. During the COVID-19 vaccination drive, the court emphasised that digital registration must be fully accessible to prevent exclusion. In the instant case, the top court held that ‘digital barriers’ blatantly violate the rights of PwD under the UNCRPD and India’s disability laws. Anchoring its judgment in the principle of ‘substantive equality’, it directed that digital KYC guidelines be revised with ‘accessibility’ at their core. It flagged that the digital divide affects not just PwDs, but rural users, senior citizens, the economically disadvantaged, and linguistic minorities.

Relying on Articles 14, 15, 21, and 38, the court affirmed that ‘digital access’ is inseparable from the ‘right to life and liberty’. It mandated the state to ensure that all digital infrastructure is accessible, especially for marginalised communities.

Kartikey Singh is a lawyer based in New Delhi.