A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The decision in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 599 delivered on 30 April 2025 by the Supreme Court of India addresses a foundational question of constitutional governance in the digital era: whether digital KYC norms that mandate “live photographs” and “liveness checks” without accessible alternatives violate the rights of persons with disabilities. The petitioners, acid attack survivors with permanent facial and ocular disfigurement and a person with 100% blindness, challenged the inaccessibility of Digital KYC, e-KYC, and Video KYC processes mandated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the RBI’s KYC Master Directions, and parallel sectoral regulations. They argued that the current framework excludes them from essential services such as banking, telecommunications, insurance, and pensions, thereby infringing Article 21, Article 14, and the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court undertook a detailed examination of constitutional guarantees, the doctrine of reasonable accommodation, and India’s obligations under the UNCRPD. It held that digital transformation cannot become a tool of exclusion. The absence of accessible design, alternative verification mechanisms, and clarity in “liveness” requirements amounted to systemic discrimination. The judgment reinforces that technological compliance under anti-money laundering laws must coexist with accessibility mandates. It directs regulatory bodies to frame inclusive digital KYC norms consistent with disability rights jurisprudence.
Keywords: Digital KYC; Reasonable Accommodation; Accessibility; RPwD Act, 2016; Article 21; UNCRPD; Financial Inclusion.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. with Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
ii) Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 289 of 2024 with W.P. (C) No. 49 of 2025
iii) Judgement Date: 30 April 2025
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
vi) Author: Justice R. Mahadevan
vii) Citation: 2025 INSC 599; available at Indian Kanoon
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;
Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005;
RBI Master Direction on KYC, 2016;
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016;
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017;
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006.
ix) Judgments overruled: None expressly overruled.
x) Related Law Subjects: Constitutional Law; Disability Law; Banking and Financial Regulation; Administrative Law; Human Rights Law; Technology Law.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The matter arose within India’s expanding digital governance framework. The State has promoted digital identity verification as a mechanism to combat financial crimes. Regulatory bodies have mandated Digital KYC and Video KYC procedures. These procedures require live photographs, OTP validation, and real-time interaction. Such mechanisms are rooted in compliance with Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and its allied Rules. However, the petitioners demonstrated that these technological standards ignore accessibility requirements.
The petitioners included acid attack survivors suffering permanent eye disfigurement. One petitioner was completely blind. They could not blink to satisfy “liveness” checks. They could not independently align cameras. They could not read screen prompts. Their digital KYC applications were rejected. They were denied banking accounts and SIM cards. The exclusion affected their financial independence. It affected dignity. It affected daily survival. The grievance thus lay at the intersection of digital compliance and constitutional morality.
The Court recognized that digital governance must remain inclusive. It emphasized that technological neutrality is a myth when design excludes vulnerable groups. The judgment thus situates disability rights within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners attempted to complete Digital KYC for essential services. The systems required blinking for liveness verification. They required reading random codes. They required uploading signatures. The petitioners were unable to comply. The facial disfigurement prevented blinking detection. Blindness prevented visual alignment and reading screen prompts. Institutions refused offline verification despite regulatory flexibility. Applications were rejected mechanically.
The petitioners argued that such denial deprived them of bank accounts, SIM cards, pensions, and investments. They relied upon Section 3 and Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. They contended that accessibility is mandatory. They asserted that reasonable accommodation was denied. They invoked Article 21 for right to dignity. They relied on Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 where this Court recognized reasonable accommodation as intrinsic to equality. They also relied on Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413 which mandated accessibility in public infrastructure.
The respondents acknowledged concerns. However, they argued that liveness checks were essential for preventing fraud. They maintained that alternatives existed. Yet evidence revealed inconsistent implementation. The Court thus had to reconcile anti-money laundering compliance with accessibility obligations.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether mandatory Digital KYC norms that require live photographs and liveness checks without accessible alternatives violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
ii) Whether failure to provide reasonable accommodation breaches Section 3 and Section 2(y) of the RPwD Act, 2016.
iii) Whether regulatory bodies are obligated under Section 40 and Section 42 of the RPwD Act, 2016 to ensure ICT accessibility.
iv) Whether exclusion from digital financial services amounts to denial of equal participation under constitutional jurisprudence.
F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Petitioners submitted that Digital KYC is now indispensable. Without it, one cannot open a bank account. One cannot obtain a SIM card. Such denial affects survival. They argued that exclusion violates Article 21 as interpreted in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 where dignity and autonomy were central. They stressed that accessibility is a constitutional obligation. They relied upon Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 where scribes were recognized as reasonable accommodation.
They further argued that undefined “liveness” allows arbitrary practices. Eye blinking is not statutorily mandated. Yet institutions treat it as mandatory. This results in indirect discrimination. They cited Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761 where dignity of persons with disabilities was upheld. They contended that technology must adapt to persons. Persons need not adapt to technology. They invoked India’s obligations under Article 9 of the UNCRPD. They emphasized that accessibility standards notified under Rule 15 of RPwD Rules, 2017 were ignored.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The counsels for Respondents submitted that Digital KYC flows from Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. They argued that identity verification prevents terror financing. RBI maintained that blinking is not mandatory. SEBI and IRDAI claimed that offline KYC remains available. DoT stated paper KYC was reintroduced in exceptional cases.
They argued that security cannot be diluted. They relied upon regulatory discretion. They submitted that liveness checks are flexible. However, they conceded willingness to improve accessibility. They emphasized training and sensitization efforts. Yet no uniform guidelines existed ensuring compliance with accessibility standards. The Court examined whether such assurances suffice under constitutional scrutiny.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 14 ensures equality before law. Any indirect discrimination violates equality.
ii) Article 21 protects dignity and autonomy. Financial exclusion affects life.
iii) Section 3(5) RPwD Act, 2016 mandates reasonable accommodation.
iv) Section 40 and Section 42 RPwD Act, 2016 impose accessibility standards for ICT.
v) Section 13 RPwD Act, 2016 guarantees access to financial services.
vi) Rule 15 RPwD Rules, 2017 prescribes website accessibility standards.
These provisions collectively create positive obligations. They require systemic adjustments. They are not aspirational. They are enforceable mandates.
I) PRECEDENTS ANALYSED BY COURT
The Court relied upon Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021) 5 SCC 370 where reasonable accommodation was recognized as a facet of substantive equality. It held that denial of scribes amounts to discrimination.
It referred to Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 413 mandating accessibility in public infrastructure.
It relied upon Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 397 recognizing enforceability of accessibility standards.
It invoked Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 761 which emphasized dignity and non-discrimination.
These precedents collectively affirmed that accessibility is integral to equality.
J) JUDGEMENT
a) Ratio Decidendi
i) Digital transformation must conform to constitutional morality. Accessibility is not optional. It is mandatory. Failure to provide alternative mechanisms violates Section 3 and Section 40 of RPwD Act, 2016. Undefined liveness requirements result in arbitrary exclusion. Such exclusion infringes Article 14 and Article 21. Anti-money laundering objectives are legitimate. Yet means must be proportionate. Denial of accommodation is disproportionate.
b) Obiter Dicta
i) The Court observed that inclusive design benefits all citizens. Accessibility strengthens governance. It does not weaken security.
c) Guidelines
The Court directed regulators to:
– Define “liveness” inclusively.
– Provide non-visual and non-blinking alternatives.
– Permit thumb impressions digitally.
– Ensure compliance with ICT accessibility standards.
– Conduct sensitization programs.
– Provide grievance redressal for PwDs.
K) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment reaffirms substantive equality. It bridges technology and human rights. It ensures that digital India remains inclusive. It harmonizes financial security with dignity. It expands accessibility jurisprudence into fintech regulation. It strengthens disability rights enforcement in digital governance.
