New Delhi: In a landmark judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors., ruled that inclusive and meaningful digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery systems is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling, authored by Justice R. Mahadevan and supported by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, marks a significant step toward ensuring equitable access to digital infrastructure for marginalized and vulnerable populations, including persons with disabilities (PwD), rural communities, senior citizens, economically weaker sections, and linguistic minorities.

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court’s ruling stemmed from petitions filed by a group of acid attack survivors, led by Pragya Prasun, and a visually impaired individual, Amar Jain. The petitioners highlighted the significant barriers faced by disabled individuals, particularly acid attack survivors and those with visual impairments, in completing digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes. These processes, often reliant on visual tasks such as facial recognition or positioning within specified screen frames, are nearly impossible for individuals with facial disfigurement, trauma, or visual impairments. The petitioners argued that such inaccessible digital systems prevent them from opening bank accounts, accessing government welfare schemes, or participating in essential e-governance services, effectively excluding them from mainstream society.

The Court recognized that the “unfriendly digital atmosphere” has further marginalized these communities rather than facilitating their inclusion. This observation led to a broader examination of the digital divide and its implications for constitutional rights.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

1. Inclusive Digital Access as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court held that the right to digital access is an “instinctive component” of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. Justice Mahadevan emphasized that in the contemporary era, access to essential services—such as governance, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities—is increasingly mediated through digital platforms. The Court reinterpreted Article 21 in light of these technological realities, stating that bridging the digital divide is a constitutional imperative to ensure a life of dignity, autonomy, and equal participation in public life.

2. State’s Obligation to Ensure Inclusivity

The judgment underscored the state’s obligation under multiple constitutional provisions, including:

• Article 21: Right to a dignified life.
• Article 14: Right to equality.
• Article 15: Right against discrimination.
• Article 38: Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandate the state to promote social justice.

The Court ruled that the state must proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only the privileged but also marginalized, underprivileged, vulnerable, disabled, and historically excluded sections of society. This obligation extends to ensuring that digital infrastructure, government portals, online learning platforms, and financial technologies are universally accessible.

3. Principle of Substantive Equality

Invoking the principle of substantive equality, the Court held that digital transformation must be both inclusive and equitable. The judgment highlighted that persons with disabilities encounter unique barriers due to inaccessible websites, applications, and a lack of assistive technologies. Similarly, rural populations face challenges such as poor connectivity and scarce content in regional languages, which deny them meaningful access to e-governance and welfare measures. The Court stressed that addressing these disparities is not a matter of policy discretion but a constitutional mandate.

4. Directives to Revise Digital KYC Norms

The Supreme Court issued 20 specific directives to the government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to make the digital KYC process more accessible, particularly for individuals with facial disfigurement due to acid attacks or visual impairments. These directives include:

• Conducting periodical accessibility audits.
• Involving persons with disabilities during the testing phase of app and website development.
• Revising eKYC norms to accommodate the unique challenges faced by disabled individuals, ensuring they can access banking and e-governance services without undue delays or exclusion.

These measures aim to align digital systems with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates accessibility for PwD.

5. Addressing the Digital Divide

The Court highlighted the systemic exclusion perpetuated by the digital divide, which affects not only PwD but also rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker communities, and linguistic minorities. Unequal access to digital infrastructure, skills, and content continues to marginalize these groups, denying them access to essential services and opportunities. The judgment emphasized that inclusive digital access is critical for:

• Accessing essential governmental schemes.
• Reducing the rural-urban divide.
• Enabling participation in online learning platforms.
• Facilitating inclusion in financial technologies.
• Integrating marginalized communities into the development process.

Significance of the Judgment

The Amar Jain v. Union of India ruling is a pivotal moment in India’s journey toward digital inclusivity. By recognizing inclusive digital access as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that could reshape the design and implementation of digital infrastructure across the country. The judgment acknowledges India’s “wave of digital progress” through initiatives like Aadhaar, online service delivery platforms, and net banking, but it also critiques the lack of inclusivity in these systems.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for:

• Policy Development: Governments and regulatory bodies must prioritize accessibility and equity in digital initiatives, moving beyond discretionary measures to constitutionally mandated actions.
• Social Justice: By addressing the needs of marginalized communities, the judgment promotes social justice and equal participation in public life.
• Economic Inclusion: Accessible digital systems enable marginalized groups to access financial services, welfare schemes, and economic opportunities, fostering inclusive growth.
• Education and Healthcare: Inclusive digital access ensures that online learning platforms and telehealth services are available to all, reducing disparities in access to education and healthcare.

Challenges Highlighted in the Judgment

The Court detailed several challenges that contribute to the digital divide:

• Inaccessible KYC Processes: Facial trauma, disfigurement, and visual impairments make it impossible for some individuals to complete visual-based KYC tasks, such as blinking, moving their heads, or positioning their faces within specified frames. This results in prolonged delays or complete exclusion from banking and e-governance services.
• Lack of Accessible Technology: Many websites and applications lack compatibility with assistive technologies, such as screen readers, making them unusable for PwD.
• Rural Connectivity Issues: Poor internet connectivity in rural areas limits access to digital platforms.
• Language Barriers: The scarcity of content in regional languages excludes linguistic minorities from e-governance and welfare measures.
• Systemic Exclusion: The digital divide disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, perpetuating systemic inequalities.

Alignment with Previous Supreme Court Rulings

The Amar Jain judgment builds on earlier Supreme Court rulings that recognized the importance of internet access as a fundamental right:

• Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (2017): The Court directed search engines to block advertisements related to pre-natal sex determination but clarified that such measures do not curtail the right to access information or freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Court ruled that access to the internet for freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry out trade is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g), respectively.

These precedents reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to protecting digital rights while ensuring that technological advancements do not exclude vulnerable populations.

The Path Forward

The Supreme Court’s 20 directives to improve the digital KYC process signal a proactive approach to addressing accessibility challenges. By mandating periodical audits and the inclusion of PwD in testing phases, the Court has laid the groundwork for a more inclusive digital ecosystem. However, implementing these directives will require coordinated efforts between the government, RBI, technology developers, and civil society organizations.

The judgment also calls for a broader reevaluation of India’s digital infrastructure. Policymakers must prioritize:

• Universal Design: Developing apps and websites that are inherently accessible to all users, regardless of ability or location.
• Regional Content: Expanding digital content in regional languages to ensure inclusivity for linguistic minorities.
• Connectivity Investments: Improving internet infrastructure in rural and underserved areas to bridge the urban-rural divide.
• Assistive Technologies: Promoting the development and adoption of technologies that support PwD, such as screen readers and voice-activated systems.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Amar Jain v. Union of India and Ors. is a clarion call for inclusive digital transformation in India. By declaring inclusive digital access a fundamental right under Article 21, the Court has reaffirmed the state’s obligation to ensure that technological progress benefits all citizens, not just the privileged. The judgment’s emphasis on substantive equality, accessibility audits, and inclusive design sets a high standard for digital governance in India.

As India continues its digital journey, the Amar Jain ruling serves as a reminder that true progress lies in inclusivity and equity. By addressing the digital divide, India can unlock the full potential of its diverse population, fostering a society where every individual has the opportunity to thrive in the digital age.

FAQs