Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

The decision in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India marks a significant development in Indian constitutional law, particularly in the context of digital governance and accessibility. Delivered on 30 April 2025, the judgment addresses the exclusion faced by persons with disabilities in accessing digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes. The Court expanded the scope of fundamental rights by recognising digital access as an essential component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case arises at a time when India has increasingly adopted digital infrastructure for delivery of essential services such as banking, telecommunications, and welfare schemes. While these systems aim to enhance efficiency, they have also created barriers for individuals with disabilities. The judgment seeks to address this gap by mandating inclusive digital practices.

Facts of Pragya Prasun v. Union of India Case

The petitions were filed by individuals who faced difficulties in completing digital KYC procedures due to disabilities. The petitioners included persons with visual impairments and acid attack survivors suffering from facial disfigurement. These individuals were unable to comply with certain requirements imposed by digital verification systems.

Digital KYC processes typically require actions such as blinking during live photo capture, aligning the face within a specified frame, or reading and responding to on-screen instructions. For many persons with disabilities, these requirements are either difficult or impossible to fulfil. As a result, access to essential services such as opening bank accounts or availing telecommunications services was denied.

A notable instance involved the denial of a bank account to a petitioner due to the inability to perform blinking during liveness verification. Such incidents highlighted the rigid and exclusionary nature of existing systems.

The petitioners challenged these practices on the ground that they violated their fundamental rights and failed to provide reasonable accommodation as required under the law.

Issues Before the Court

The Pragya Prasun v. Union of India case raised important constitutional and legal questions relating to accessibility and inclusion in digital systems. The primary issues included:

• Whether digital KYC procedures that exclude persons with disabilities violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
• Whether the State and regulatory authorities have a duty to ensure accessibility in digital infrastructure and services.
• Whether the existing digital KYC framework complies with the requirements of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Whether reasonable accommodation must be incorporated into digital verification processes.

Arguments and Contentions

The petitioners contended that the design of digital KYC systems failed to account for the needs of persons with disabilities. Requirements such as blinking, facial recognition, and reading on-screen codes created barriers for individuals with visual impairments or facial injuries.

It was argued that these systems violated the principle of equality and non-discrimination. The petitioners relied on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates reasonable accommodation and accessibility in services.

The petitioners also referred to international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which requires State parties to ensure equal access to services and information.

On the other hand, the use of digital KYC systems was justified on the basis of efficiency and security. However, the petitioners emphasised that efficiency cannot override fundamental rights and that systems must be designed to include all individuals.

Legal Framework

The Court analysed the issue within a comprehensive legal framework, including constitutional provisions, statutory law, and international obligations.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 15 prohibits discrimination on various grounds.
• Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity.
• Article 38 directs the State to promote welfare and reduce inequalities.

The Court interpreted these provisions in light of contemporary digital realities.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The Act plays a central role in ensuring accessibility and inclusion. Key provisions include:

• Recognition of equality and non-discrimination.
• Obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.
• Requirement to ensure access to information and communication technology.
• Mandate to achieve accessibility within a specified time frame.

The Act was treated as a binding framework that must be implemented in both physical and digital domains.

International Law

The Court referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Convention places obligations on States to adopt measures that ensure accessibility and inclusion for persons with disabilities.

Judicial Precedents

The Court relied on earlier decisions to reinforce the principle of accessibility.

In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, accessibility in physical infrastructure was recognised as essential to the right to dignity and mobility.

In Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, In re, the Court held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act has a special status and that denial of rights under the Act amounts to violation of fundamental rights.

In Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic, In re, the Court emphasised the importance of making digital platforms accessible, particularly in the context of essential services.

These precedents collectively establish that accessibility is integral to constitutional rights.

Pragya Prasun v. Union of India Judgment

The Court in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India recognised that digital KYC systems, while beneficial in terms of efficiency, have created barriers for persons with disabilities. The exclusion arising from such systems was held to be inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.

A key finding of the Court was that the right to life under Article 21 must be interpreted in light of technological developments. In the contemporary era, access to essential services is largely mediated through digital platforms. Therefore, digital access becomes an essential component of the right to live with dignity.

The Court also highlighted the existence of a digital divide, which affects not only persons with disabilities but also other vulnerable groups such as senior citizens and economically weaker sections. The judgment acknowledges that exclusion can arise from structural and technological factors.

The Court held that the State has a positive obligation to ensure that digital systems are inclusive and accessible. This obligation extends to the design, implementation, and operation of digital infrastructure.

Recognition of Digital Accessibility as a Fundamental Right

One of the most important contributions of the judgment is the recognition of digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty. The Court stated that access to digital services is necessary for participation in modern society.

This recognition transforms digital accessibility from a policy concern into a constitutional requirement. It requires the State to actively design systems that accommodate diverse needs.

The judgment emphasises that dignity, autonomy, and equal participation cannot be achieved without ensuring accessibility in digital systems.

Directions Issued by the Court in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

The Court in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India issued several directions to ensure that digital KYC processes are accessible to persons with disabilities.

These directions include:

• Adoption of accessibility standards across all digital platforms.
• Provision of alternative methods for completing KYC, including offline and paper-based options.
• Acceptance of thumb impressions and other alternative forms of authentication.
• Removal of rigid requirements such as mandatory blinking during liveness verification.
• Establishment of mechanisms for human review of rejected applications.
• Appointment of nodal officers responsible for ensuring compliance with accessibility standards.
• Creation of dedicated helplines to assist persons with disabilities in completing KYC procedures.
• Conduct of accessibility audits by regulatory authorities.

Regulatory bodies such as the Reserve Bank of India and other authorities were directed to revise their guidelines to ensure compliance.

Broader Implications of the Judgment of Pragya Prasun v. Union of India

The judgment has significant implications for digital governance and inclusion in India.

First, it expands the understanding of disability by recognising that exclusion can arise from interaction between technology and individual conditions. This includes situations where individuals are unable to meet biometric requirements due to age or occupational factors.

Second, the judgment reframes digital systems as constitutional interfaces rather than mere administrative tools. Access to digital services becomes a matter of equal citizenship.

Third, the decision creates a framework for future legal challenges related to digital exclusion. It opens the possibility of extending accessibility requirements to other areas such as education, healthcare, and welfare delivery.

Fourth, the judgment places a responsibility on both the State and private service providers to ensure inclusive design.

Conclusion

The decision in Pragya Prasun v. Union of India represents a transformative moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It recognises that in a digital society, access to technology is closely linked with the exercise of fundamental rights.

By declaring digital access as part of the right to life, the Supreme Court has shifted the focus from efficiency to inclusion. The judgment underscores the need for systems that accommodate diversity and prevent exclusion.

The directions issued by the Court provide a comprehensive framework for making digital KYC processes accessible. Their effective implementation will play a crucial role in ensuring that digital transformation benefits all sections of society.