UPSC Editorial Analysis: Supreme Court’s recognition of Digital Access as a Fundamental Right
Kartavya Desk Staff
*General Studies-2; Topic: **Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary**; **Ministries and Departments **of the Government**; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.*
Supreme Court’s recognition of Digital Access as a Fundamental Right
Introduction
• In a landmark judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, declaring that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and personal liberty.
• This decision mandates the state to ensure an inclusive digital ecosystem, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities, rural populations, senior citizens, and economically weaker sections.
Background of the Case
The judgment arose from two Public Interest Litigations (PILs):
• Pragya Prasun v. Union of India: Filed by an acid attack survivor who faced severe facial disfigurement and was unable to complete the e-KYC process due to the requirement of blinking for a live photograph.
• Amar Jain v. Union of India: Filed by a visually impaired advocate who encountered barriers in completing digital KYC processes, such as taking selfies and handling short-duration OTPs.
Both petitioners argued that the existing digital KYC procedures were discriminatory and violated their rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and the Constitution.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
• Digital Access as a Fundamental Right: The Court held that in the contemporary era, access to essential services—governance, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities—is increasingly mediated through digital platforms. Therefore, the right to life under Article 21 must be reinterpreted to include the right to digital access.
• The Court held that in the contemporary era, access to essential services—governance, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities—is increasingly mediated through digital platforms.
• Therefore, the right to life under Article 21 must be reinterpreted to include the right to digital access.
• State’s Obligation: The State’s obligations under Article 21, read in conjunction with Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 38 (promotion of welfare), encompass the responsibility to ensure that digital infrastructure and services are universally accessible.
• The State’s obligations under Article 21, read in conjunction with Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 38 (promotion of welfare), encompass the responsibility to ensure that digital infrastructure and services are universally accessible.
• Bridging the Digital Divide: The Court emphasized that bridging the digital divide is no longer a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy, and equal participation in public life.
• The Court emphasized that bridging the digital divide is no longer a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy, and equal participation in public life.
Directions Issued by the Court
The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to ensure inclusivity in digital processes:
• Revision of e-KYC Norms: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulatory bodies must revise digital KYC norms to accommodate persons with disabilities, including those with facial disfigurements and visual impairments.
• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and other regulatory bodies must revise digital KYC norms to accommodate persons with disabilities, including those with facial disfigurements and visual impairments.
• Alternative Authentication Methods: Develop alternative modes for verifying “liveness” during KYC processes, such as voice-based authentication or manual verification, beyond traditional methods like blinking.
• Develop alternative modes for verifying “liveness” during KYC processes, such as voice-based authentication or manual verification, beyond traditional methods like blinking.
• Accessible Digital Interfaces: Ensure that all government portals, learning platforms, and financial technology services comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to be compatible with assistive technologies.
• Ensure that all government portals, learning platforms, and financial technology services comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to be compatible with assistive technologies.
• Extended OTP Durations: Provide longer validity periods for OTPs to accommodate individuals with visual impairments.
• Provide longer validity periods for OTPs to accommodate individuals with visual impairments.
• Staff Training: Train bank and government personnel to assist persons with disabilities in completing e-KYC processes.
• Train bank and government personnel to assist persons with disabilities in completing e-KYC processes.
• Regional Language Support: Offer digital content in regional languages to include linguistic minorities.
• Offer digital content in regional languages to include linguistic minorities.
• Appointment of Nodal Officers: Each department must appoint a nodal officer responsible for digital accessibility compliance.
• Each department must appoint a nodal officer responsible for digital accessibility compliance.
• Periodic Accessibility Audits: Mandate regular accessibility audits by certified professionals to ensure compliance with accessibility standards.
• Mandate regular accessibility audits by certified professionals to ensure compliance with accessibility standards.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: The Act mandates equality and non-discrimination, requiring reasonable accommodations to ensure access. The Court found that inaccessible e-KYC processes violated these provisions.
• Substantive Equality: The principle of substantive equality demands that digital transformation be both inclusive and equitable, accommodating the varied needs of all citizens.
• Precedents: The judgment builds on prior Supreme Court decisions, such as Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2017), which recognized accessibility of public infrastructure as part of Article 21, and Vikash Kumar v. UPSC (2021), which mandated reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Broader Implications
• Policy Reforms: Government and private entities must adopt accessibility standards, redesign portals, and train staff to comply with the Court’s directions.
• Digital Inclusion: Beyond persons with disabilities, the judgment benefits rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker sections, and linguistic minorities by mandating accessible digital infrastructure.
• Internet Shutdowns: The ruling could make it more challenging for the government to justify internet shutdowns, as digital access is now a constitutional right.
Challenges in Implementation
• Technological Barriers: Many government portals and services lack compliance with accessibility standards, requiring significant upgrades.
• Digital Literacy Gaps: Rural and marginalized communities require training to navigate accessible platforms effectively.
• Resource Constraints: Upgrading digital infrastructure and training staff across states demands significant funding and coordination.
• Monitoring Compliance: Ensuring consistent adherence to the directions requires robust oversight mechanisms.
Way Forward
• Legislative Backing for Digital Rights: Parliament should consider enacting a comprehensive Digital Rights and Accessibility Law aligned with the Supreme Court’s ruling. This would provide clear mandates, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms to institutionalize digital inclusion across sectors.
• Parliament should consider enacting a comprehensive Digital Rights and Accessibility Law aligned with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
• This would provide clear mandates, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms to institutionalize digital inclusion across sectors.
• Universal Design Standards: The government must enforce Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms for all public and private digital interfaces. This should be supplemented by mandatory accessibility audits for all e-governance platforms.
• The government must enforce Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms for all public and private digital interfaces.
• This should be supplemented by mandatory accessibility audits for all e-governance platforms.
• Capacity Building and Digital Literacy: Launch targeted digital literacy missions for rural populations, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. Special modules in regional languages, audio-visual content, and Braille formats should be integrated into government outreach efforts.
• Launch targeted digital literacy missions for rural populations, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.
• Special modules in regional languages, audio-visual content, and Braille formats should be integrated into government outreach efforts.
• Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: Develop partnerships among government departments, tech companies, civil society organizations, and accessibility experts to co-create user-friendly digital solutions.
• Develop partnerships among government departments, tech companies, civil society organizations, and accessibility experts to co-create user-friendly digital solutions.
• Robust Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Establish an ombudsman or digital rights commission under the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to address accessibility-related complaints swiftly and ensure accountability.
• Establish an ombudsman or digital rights commission under the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) to address accessibility-related complaints swiftly and ensure accountability.
• Rethink Internet Shutdowns: With digital access now part of Article 21, any move to curtail connectivity must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality as outlined in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020).
• With digital access now part of Article 21, any move to curtail connectivity must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality as outlined in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020).
Conclusion
• The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant step toward bridging the digital divide and ensuring that digital transformation in India is inclusive and equitable.
• By recognizing digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21, the Court has paved the way for a more inclusive digital ecosystem that serves all citizens, particularly the marginalized and vulnerable.
“Digital inclusion is no longer a policy choice but a constitutional mandate.” In light of the recent Supreme Court judgment recognizing digital access as a fundamental right, critically examine the implications for governance and public service delivery in India. (250 words)