Summary
In the case of Masoom Reza v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities held that barriers in the Trade Marks portal raised a serious issue of digital accessibility under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court said that accessibility of public digital services is a legal duty and cannot be postponed on grounds of convenience, future upgrades, or technical difficulty. It directed a fresh accessibility audit, a time bound compliance plan, and interim alternative access for persons with disabilities. This order follows the Karnataka High Court judgement in Dr Kalyan C. Kankanala v. Union of India, where the Office of the CGPDTM filed an affidavit stating that it had issued accessibility and reasonable accommodation guidelines and would make its websites accessible to persons with disabilities.
Background
Digital Accessibility of IP Office Services
The complainant, a person with 100 blindness, filed a complaint stating that the online filing system of the Trade Marks registry required CAPTCHA verification that could not be properly completed through screen readers (a software/applications used by persons with blindness). He also stated that the audio CAPTCHA did not indicate capital letters, which made correct input difficult. In addition, he pointed out that certain Trade Marks search services required image CAPTCHA without any audio alternative. He had already raised these issues with the concerned officers by email before filing the complaint.
The respondent stated during the hearing that some issues relating to audio CAPTCHA had been addressed and the remaining issues would be addressed in due course. The respondent also argued that the issue was not significant enough to require intervention by the court.
Questions Before the Court
Whether inaccessible CAPTCHA and related digital barriers on the IP Office Trade Marks portal and search services violated the accessibility duties imposed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Whether accessibility of websites, portals, and ICT based public services was a binding legal obligation under Sections 40, 42, and 46 of the RPwd Act, read with Rule 15 of the RPwd Rules and the applicable BIS standards.
Whether the respondent had to take concrete and time bound steps to remove barriers and provide effective access to persons with disabilities.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
The complainant argued that CAPTCHA operated as an entry barrier and that inaccessible digital design denied statutory rights to persons with disabilities. He submitted that the audio CAPTCHA remained ineffective because it did not announce capitalization of letters. He also stated that he had already emailed the respondent before approaching the court and opposed the suggestion that the issue was minor.
The respondent argued that the matter related only to Trade Marks and was not serious enough to require the intervention of the court. The respondent further submitted that some issues had been addressed and the remaining issues would be resolved in due course.
Court’s Analysis
To begin with, the Court situated the grievance within a broader structural context, treating it not as an instance of individual inconvenience but as one engaging the systemic question of digital accessibility in public-facing services. This, in the Court’s view, was directly governed by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which, according to the Court, imposes binding obligations rather than aspirational standards.
Within this statutory framework, the Court read Sections 40, 42, and 46 as forming a cohesive scheme. Section 40, as per the Court, contemplates the formulation of accessibility standards for information and communication systems; Section 42, in the Court’s view, requires that electronic content and media be accessible; and Section 46, according to the Court, obliges service providers to comply with such standards within a prescribed timeframe. These provisions, taken together, establish, in the Court’s view, a clear and enforceable duty in the design and delivery of digital services.
The Court relied on Rule 15(1)(c)(iii) and the BIS standard IS 17802, and underscored that, once ICT accessibility standards are incorporated into the statutory regime, compliance is no longer subject to administrative discretion. Accessibility, as articulated by the Court, assumes the character of a legal mandate—one that, in the Court’s view, cannot be deferred on grounds of convenience, resource constraints, or evolving policy preferences.
The Court relied on Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and stated that the Supreme Court had treated accessibility as a mandatory and enforceable requirement under the Act. The combined order in Pragya Prasun and Amar Jain, in the Court’s view, further located digital accessibility within the guarantees of dignity and meaningful access. Drawing on these authorities, the Court held that where essential services are delivered through digital means, the platforms themselves must be accessible. In the Court’s view, any arrangement that compels a person with disability to rely on others, or that effectively denies access due to deficient system design, is inconsistent with the statutory mandate.
The respondent’s attempt to diminish the issue did not find favour with the Court. Generalised references to technical limitations, anticipated upgrades, vendor dependencies, or administrative inconvenience were, according to the Court, insufficient to discharge a statutory obligation. Such considerations, in the Court’s view, cannot justify non-compliance with accessibility requirements embedded in law.
Findings
The court recommended a fresh accessibility audit of the impugned digital platforms through an auditor from the DEPwD panel. It directed that the audit cover the website, portal, login workflow, OTP flow, document upload, image verification, CAPTCHA, prompts, form fields, downloadable documents, helpdesk, and grievance channels. It also directed the respondent to prepare a time bound compliance plan if barriers were found, appoint a nodal officer for digital accessibility, and provide an equally effective alternative accessible mechanism pending full compliance. The court directed submission of a compliance report within 90 days and then closed the matter with these observations and recommendations.
Prior Karnataka High Court Order on Accessibility
This matter may also be viewed in the broader context of accessibility concerns raised earlier before the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala v. Union of India. In that matter, the Office of the CGPDTM filed an affidavit stating that it had issued accessibility and reasonable accommodation guidelines, had provided certain accessibility measures, and had taken steps to make its websites accessible. The present CCPD order, however, does not refer to that High Court case, and it stands on its own reasoning and directions.
Case Citation
Masoom Reza v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Case No. 14341/1101/2023, Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, 2026. Masoom Reza v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Case No. 1434111012023
Dr. Kalyan C. Kankanala v. Union of India, W.P. No. 21978 of 2021, Karnataka High Court, Sept. 17, 2024. Indian Kanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160046535/ Visited on April 14, 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.