On 30 April 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India, directing regulatory and governmental authorities to make digital KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures accessible to persons with disabilities. KYC procedures, which involve verifying an individual’s identity to access services like banking, mobile networks, and other essential systems, had been designed without accounting for disabled users. The petitions were brought by individuals who experienced exclusion due to visual impairments and facial disfigurements resulting from acid attacks. They challenged the technological and procedural design of digital KYC systems which hindered independent access to banking, telecommunications, and other essential services.

The judgment responds to a broader shift in India’s welfare and financial infrastructure. Over the last decade, digital verification mechanisms have become central to accessing public services. Procedures involving facial recognition, live selfies, biometric scans, and real-time video authentication have replaced traditional forms of in-person identification. These mechanisms are presented as neutral and efficient but fail to accommodate individuals comprehensively, including those with non-normative physical attributes or sensory disabilities.

Petitioners highlighted how requirements like blinking during a live-photo capture or reading a code on screen pose barriers for persons with visual impairments. Others are unable to align their faces due to facial injuries or disfigurements. The Court recognised these exclusions as violations of the right to life, equality, non-discrimination and dignity under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and reaffirmed the obligations set out under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act), including the duty to provide reasonable accommodation.

Drawing on earlier jurisprudence, including Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2018), the Court reinforced the principle that accessibility is integral to substantive equality. In Rajive Raturi, the Court held that physical infrastructure in courts and public buildings must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The present judgment builds on that foundation by applying the accessibility mandate to digital infrastructure that increasingly serves as the first point of contact for essential services.

The Court issued twenty directives aimed at transforming the digital KYC landscape. These include the implementation of accessibility standards across all platforms, the availability of paper-based and offline KYC alternatives, the acceptance of thumb impressions as signatures, and the removal of restrictive definitions of liveness. Regulatory bodies such as the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, and the Department of Telecommunications are tasked with conducting accessibility audits, revising operational procedures, and providing human assistance and support systems for persons with disabilities.

The reasoning adopted by the Court opens important pathways for rethinking exclusion within digital systems. While the judgment addresses specific impairments such as blindness and facial disfigurement, it invites a more expansive view of access. Many individuals experience functional impairments that are not legally framed as disabilities. For instance, older adults whose iris scans fail to register due to age-related changes, or manual labourers whose fingerprints no longer authenticate due to skin erosion, frequently encounter systematic denial of welfare benefits including rations, pensions, and rural employment wage payments.

These patterns of exclusion are embedded in the material realities of physical labour, poverty, and aging. Though the judgment does not directly address these forms of biometric mismatch, it foregrounds the idea that digital systems must adapt to human diversity. In doing so, it creates the legal and conceptual space for future challenges grounded in a broader understanding of disability and exclusion.

The decision also places renewed emphasis on the role of technology in shaping access to fundamental entitlements. KYC systems are often viewed as technical filters to ensure financial compliance. The Court’s intervention reframes them as interfaces of constitutional consequence. Access to digital identification becomes a question of equal citizenship rather than administrative convenience.

Across jurisdictions, states are rapidly embedding digital public infrastructure (DPI) into public policy. The Indian Supreme Court’s intervention offers a model for evaluating these systems through the lens of accessibility and dignity. Regulatory and judicial attention to digital exclusion remains critical, especially for populations at the margins of formal recognition.

The directives outlined in this judgment serve as an immediate mandate for reform and signal a shift in the normative expectations around digital governance. As institutions implement these changes, they must also engage with the broader ecosystem of exclusion where disability arises not from impairments but from structural and occupational realities that disrupt biometric continuity and digital legibility.