Written by Iqra Syed
In a groundbreaking verdict delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India decisively interpreted the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 to include the right to digital access, thereby significantly expanding the constitutional understanding of fundamental rights in the digital era. The judgment, pronounced in a combined hearing of Pragya Prasun v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India, arose from long-standing grievances of persons with disabilities who found themselves systematically excluded from essential services due to digital inaccessibility. The petitioners highlighted how increasingly digitised processes for banking, identification, healthcare, and welfare services created insurmountable barriers for people with visual and locomotor impairments, as well as acid attack survivors. The Court, led by a three-judge bench, held that when access to life-sustaining services such as healthcare, financial transactions, government benefits, and educational resources is conditioned upon digital engagement, the denial of such access due to inaccessibility is not merely a logistical failure but a constitutional violation. By recognizing the right to meaningful digital access as a component of Article 21, the Court ushered in a new era of jurisprudence that bridges technology, dignity, and equality.
The bench emphasized that the digital divide in India is not solely defined by economic or rural-urban parameters but is equally shaped by discriminatory design and infrastructural apathy. When digital systems are designed without incorporating universal accessibility standards, they systematically exclude entire communities, particularly persons with disabilities. The Court observed that in a society where Aadhaar-based e-KYC is essential for banking, where telemedicine platforms are the norm in healthcare delivery, and where most government schemes are linked with digital verification protocols, it is inconceivable to treat digital access as a matter of privilege. Instead, such access is integral to living with dignity, autonomy, and full participation in civic life. The Court ruled that the failure of the state and private entities to create inclusive digital frameworks amounts to a denial of the right to life, given that survival and well-being in a digitally-mediated society now depend on equitable access to these platforms. It also criticized the inertia of institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which had not implemented alternative methods of biometric verification, thereby violating the rights of individuals who are physically unable to use fingerprint or iris-based recognition systems.
One of the central directives of the judgment was for the Reserve Bank of India to immediately issue guidelines mandating inclusive KYC mechanisms for banks and financial institutions. This includes accepting thumb impressions, voice authentication, facial recognition, and other non-invasive alternatives that cater to individuals with visual impairments or loss of biometrics due to burns or acid attacks. Furthermore, the Court ordered all regulated digital platforms, especially those involved in essential services—healthcare, education, employment, and finance—to comply strictly with the accessibility standards prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically referencing Section 46. These standards are to be aligned with international benchmarks such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. The Court made it clear that compliance must go beyond checkbox formalism; digital service providers are now obligated to conduct regular accessibility audits, employ accessibility officers, and establish user-friendly grievance redressal mechanisms with human intervention. It also directed the Central Government to develop a comprehensive National Digital Accessibility Policy, with input from disabled persons’ organizations and accessibility experts.
The significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the Court did not treat the matter as an isolated issue concerning disability rights alone. Instead, it viewed the exclusionary nature of digital systems as a broader constitutional failure impacting the right to equality, non-discrimination, and participatory citizenship. The judgment rightly identified that digital inaccessibility does not merely hinder convenience but undermines the constitutional promise of inclusive development and human dignity. The Court’s insistence on human oversight in AI-based systems and digital verifications was also notable, as it addresses the growing concern around algorithmic governance that lacks empathy, adaptability, or redressal for users who fall outside statistical norms. Moreover, the Court situated this decision within India’s obligations under international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), thereby reinforcing that the right to digital inclusion is not merely a policy prerogative but a human rights imperative.
On the positive side, this judgment is a landmark in India’s constitutional evolution, much like the decisions in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) which recognized the right to privacy, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) which upheld free expression in the digital realm. It aligns India’s constitutional values with the digital transformation that the country is undergoing and reaffirms that technological progress must be both inclusive and human-centric. For persons with disabilities, it offers long-awaited legal recognition of their digital struggles and mandates the systemic changes necessary for them to lead independent lives. It also sets a strong precedent for future legal challenges around AI ethics, algorithmic discrimination, and digital surveillance, as the Court has now clearly established that digital exclusion, regardless of intent, can constitute a violation of fundamental rights.
However, the judgment also brings to light several practical challenges and areas of concern. Firstly, the implementation of these directives depends heavily on bureaucratic will and technical expertise, which has historically been lacking in both government agencies and private sector stakeholders. Many digital platforms continue to be built with little regard for accessibility, and the shortage of skilled professionals in inclusive tech design further compounds this issue. Secondly, the judgment prescribes compliance but does not lay out concrete timelines or penalties for non-compliance, which may result in delayed or superficial reforms. Thirdly, the digital literacy gap remains vast in India—not just among the disabled population, but also among senior citizens, women in rural areas, and linguistic minorities—raising concerns about whether mere legal recognition can bridge the multifaceted nature of digital exclusion. Additionally, while the judgment promotes digital inclusion, it does not adequately address the economic dimension of access, such as the affordability of smartphones, data plans, and assistive technologies, which are crucial for the meaningful realization of digital rights. Lastly, without sustained public pressure and grassroots mobilization, there is a risk that the judgment may remain celebrated in legal circles but neglected in everyday governance and tech development.
Nevertheless, the verdict stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional rights must evolve with technological change, and that digital spaces, like physical ones, must be governed by the principles of equality, dignity, and inclusion. It places the onus on both the state and private actors to ensure that digital transformation does not leave the vulnerable further behind. As India aspires to become a global digital economy, the judgment serves as a necessary course correction, urging policymakers, technologists, and civil society to work collaboratively to build a digital public infrastructure that is accessible, empathetic, and just. This judicial recognition of the right to digital access under Article 21 redefines the meaning of citizenship in the 21st century—not just as a status but as the ability to participate, contribute, and thrive in a digitally interconnected world.