Summary
The Supreme Court’s digital KYC judgment once again confirms the right to accessibility under the Indian Constitution and disability law. Recognising the discriminatory impact of current KYC systems on persons with disabilities, the Court imposed binding obligations on both state and private actors to adopt accessible digital infrastructure. For IP professionals, the ruling carries transformative potential—enabling independent access to filing systems, authentication tools, and payment platforms, and sets the groundwork for accessible, autonomous IP practice in India.
Technology always outruns the law, and law often outpaces government response and implementation.
While some may question the validity of this assertion, and others may dismiss it as overly simplistic or immature, persons with disabilities are unlikely to dispute the fundamental truth embedded in it. This pattern is especially evident in areas where human and fundamental rights intersect with state authority, a battleground where the pendulum of progress constantly swings between facilitation and exclusion.
Over the last decade, courts have pronounced several progressive judgments mandating both government and private entities to ensure accessibility. These rulings—combined with the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and the corresponding 2017 Rules—kindled new hope in the disability community. A hope that long-awaited autonomy, independence, and the power of choice would finally become a lived reality. Campaigns like Accessible India further bolstered this spirit. For many, it appeared as though transformative change was on the horizon.
The Promise and the Accessibility Gap
But that was not to be. Legal reforms and policy shifts materialized. Government commitments were made, and administrative action was initiated, but systemic barriers, attitudinal resistance, inadequate financial support, and bureaucratic inertia held back meaningful accessibility progress, But, every now and then, a Supreme Court or High Court judgment breaks through the gridlock, rejuvenating belief in the possibility of systemic transformation in accessibility. A recent Supreme Court ruling on digital KYC is one such development.
Digital KYC and Accessibility
The case before the Supreme Court was filed by acid attack survivors and a person with blindness, who argued that existing digital KYC systems—requiring live photographs that involved blinking, reading visual codes, and signing documents—were inaccessible and discriminatory. They contended that these requirements violated fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court on Digital KYC Accessibility
The Court started by acknowledging that digital KYC has today become essential for accessing services like banking, telecommunications, insurance, pensions, and government welfare schemes. However, as per the Court, the current frameworks fail to accommodate the accessibility requirements of persons with blindness and facial disfigurements, in effect excluding them from basic services. It stated that regulated entities often lack accessible interfaces, do not accept thumb impressions or alternative signatures, and prohibit assistance or prompting—making it impossible for such individuals to complete the process independently.
While several regulatory bodies, including the RBI, SEBI, TRAI, DoT, and others acknowledged these concerns and cited partial efforts to address them, the Court found that a consistent and comprehensive approach was lacking.
Referring to earlier Judgments of the Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, the Court held that the RPwD Act, 2016 imposes a binding obligation on the State and private entities to facilitate accessibility and provide reasonable accommodations. It stated that the right to digital access is a component of the right to life under Article 21, particularly in an age where most services are delivered online. The Court found that digital exclusion results in social and economic marginalization and violates the fundamental right to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
Directions: Accessibility of Digital KYC
Based on its analysis, the Court issued a series of binding directions to ensure inclusive digital KYC processes. These include adopting alternative methods for liveness detection, accepting thumb impressions and guardians’ signatures, conducting mandatory accessibility audits, and ensuring that websites and apps comply with prescribed accessibility standards such as WCAG and GIGW.
The Court also directed the creation of helplines, grievance redress mechanisms, and manual override systems for rejected KYC applications along with regular training and sensitization for officials.
Where Does Intellectual Property Come In?
Readers may rightly ask—what is the relevance of this development for intellectual property? The connection is more than incidental.
In 2024, the Indian IP Office gave an undertaking before the Karnataka High Court to make its systems accessible to persons with disabilities. Following this, a few changes were implemented. Yet, the core challenges remain. The IP Office’s website and online filing portals continue to suffer from basic accessibility deficiencies. Ironically, even newer facilities and services being launched fail to meet accessibility norms.
In its defense before the Karnataka High Court, the IP Office argued that the Government of India Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) 3.0 were not applicable to it. This argument perhaps explains the persistent inaccessibility of several filing system features, payment gateways, and website services.
The recent Supreme Court judgment directly addresses two critical issues relevant to this situation:
-
Mandatory Compliance with Accessibility Standards
The Court unequivocally held in the case that GIGW 3.0, BIS Accessibility Standards, and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 are binding on both government and private entities. This directly nullifies the IP Office’s earlier stand and makes it obligatory for the office to ensure full accessibility of its digital infrastructure.
-
Digital KYC and IP Practice
The Court further mandated in the case that Know Your Customer (KYC) documents and authentication gateways must be fully accessible to persons with disabilities. At present, IP attorneys with blindness are dependent on others to obtain digital signatures, and inaccessible payment systems prevent them from independently completing form submissions and transactions.
This ruling, if properly implemented, could bring attorneys with disabilities closer to independent IP practice. If that will happen: only time will tell.
Citation: Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 289 of 2024, and Amar Jain v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 49 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, April 30, 2025).
Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68332080/, Visited on: 04/05/2025.
The 2024 Karnataka High Court order referred to in the post, passed in the case of Dr Kalyan C Kankanala vs Union of India, WP No. 21978 of 2021 on 17th September, 2024 can be accessed at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160046535/ Visited on: 04/05/2025
