Recently, in the cases of Pragya Prosun v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that inclusive and meaningful digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery systems is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The petitioner in the first case, an acid attack victim, could not undergo e-KYC because one is supposed to blink to take a live photo, which she was incapable of doing. On the same note, in the second case, a visually impaired advocate encountered difficulties with the OTPs and taking self-portraits when undergoing the e-KYC process.

Current Framework

According to the honourable court, current digital KYC practices are discriminatory against individuals with disabilities. It did not comply with their rights as under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court, therefore, issued 20 directives to the government, requiring amendments to the e-KYC norms to accommodate individuals with disabilities. These instructions, which incorporated provisions such as extending OTP time, appointing nodal officers to monitor compliance, and utilising regular audits to ensure adherence to accessibility standards, have been implemented.

This case upheld the constitutional right to access digital information, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has also emphasised the state’s role in treating all individuals equally without any form of discrimination, as provided in Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. The instructions provided by the Court are to establish a fair and democratic online environment that will not only benefit individuals with disabilities, but also senior citizens, rural communities, and the marginalised and minority linguistic groups.

This article examines the re-colouring of digital access as a constitutional right, moving beyond the more traditional framework of disability-focused discussions. It also discusses how this change may impact administrative accountability, data-driven governance, and algorithmic fairness. It will also critically analyse how delegated legislation and executive guidelines need to adapt to embrace the principles of universal design, ensuring that the application of technology-enabled administrative procedures does not inadvertently embed and reinforce systemic inequalities. The article introduces a new approach to the role of inclusive digital structures as a standard for global governance and accessibility, placing judgment at the intersection of law, technology, and human dignity.

Administrative Framework of e-KYC

In India, the regulation for implementing e-KYC primarily operates under the administrative guidelines and circulars issued by regulatory authorities, including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). These agencies act within the delegated powers outlined by various laws. These include the Aadhaar Act and the Banking Regulation Act, along with other relevant legislation in specific sectors, which have established frameworks that support the identity verification process. Examples include UIDAI biometric authentication standards, RBI customer due diligence (CDD) circulars, and SEBI investor onboarding guidelines. All of these have shaped the functioning of eKYC across various industries, including banking, telecommunications, and financial markets.

However, the framework relies heavily on delegated rules, notifications, and circulars issued by executive authorities rather than detailed parliamentary legislation. This offers administrative flexibility and facilitates rapid adaptation to new technologies. Furthermore, it raises significant concerns regarding accountability and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. This exclusion is worsened by the absence of legal obligations to provide access to alternatives or effective grievance redress mechanisms.

When biometric errors or inaccessible interfaces hinder persons with disabilities (PwDs) from accessing essential services, there is a lack of clear accountability frameworks within administrative bodies. This situation raises important questions about how to balance technological efficiency with inclusive governance through the lens of administrative law.

Challenges

Persons with disabilities (PwDs) face many challenges when using e-KYC systems. Individuals with motor impairments, limb deformities, or visual disabilities may struggle to use biometric authentication methods, such as fingerprint or iris scans. Similarly, liveness detection features such as blinking or facial recognition do not accommodate physical disabilities, leading to repeated authentication failures for these individuals.

Most e-KYC services and applications are also not designed to be compatible with screen readers or voice commands, making navigation difficult for users with visual impairments. As a result, PwDs are frequently denied access to essential services such as bank accounts, SIM cards, or government-supported welfare. This exclusion is more than a technical issue; it undermines the principles of equality and fairness. Inaccessible systems breach the norms of natural justice by denying PwDs their right to participate in administrative processes on equal terms and to be heard by the system.

Administrative Principles in Action

The ruling by the Supreme Court in the Pragya Prasun case stands out as one of the first acknowledgements of the doctrines of administrative law. As such, persons with disabilities (PwDs) are valued under digital governance procedures, such as e-KYC. Fundamentally, the case emphasises the rule of law, which demands that administrative decisions be transparent, understandable, and non-arbitrary.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expressed that laws and administrative practices should be just and fair, and must not exclude any citizen without due process. Mandatory non-enrolment of PwDs in e-KYC services contradicts this principle since it deprives them of access to vital services like banking and welfare benefits. The judgment also reinforces the doctrine of natural justice. Audi Alteram Partem, that is, the right to be heard, requires that before PwDs are refused services on technological grounds, reasonable alternatives must be provided. This right is violated by exclusion without consultation or consideration of available processes.

Similarly, Nemo Judex in Causa Sua prohibits decision-making influenced by prejudice. The failure of automated authentication systems to be appropriately controlled risks fostering discriminatory policies that may deny disabled users equal opportunities. By the court taking cognisance of these grievance mechanisms and alternative verification methods, this bias can be addressed. Furthermore, the case raises concerns regarding delegated legislation. Although these frameworks enable swift policy implementation, they lack parliamentary oversight to prevent unintentional discrimination. The Court’s intervention highlights the importance of statutory safeguards and accountability mechanisms in ensuring the inclusion, fairness, and constitutional compatibility of digital governance.

International Perspective

Every corner of the world is striving to make digital identification systems universal and accessible to all. The European Union has the Accessibility Act (“Act”), which strengthens digital services for persons with Disabilities. The Act emphasises usability, assistive technologies, and accessibility as essential aspects of digital governance. Similarly, in the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandates that electronic and information technology, including authentication systems, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, ensuring that people with disabilities can participate equally in services offered by both the public and private sectors.

On a global scale, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) requires member states to recognise that people with disabilities should have equal access to services provided by the state, even when these are offered via digital platforms. India is also a signatory to this convention. It affirms that accessibility is not an optional feature but a fundamental right linked to dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Despite these international standards, India’s digital government infrastructure remains disorganised regarding practical accessibility standards. This allows reliance on executive directives rather than legal mandates, highlighting the need to align more closely with international best practices.

Recommendation

The stakeholders must take several specific actions to ensure that the inclusion of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in digital systems is meaningful. Firstly, Regulators should require OTPs, voice-based authentication, and facial recognition as multi-modal authentication modes to facilitate users with various disabilities. Secondly, accessibility complaints should be addressed fairly and promptly by the authorities, utilising a robust grievance redressal system supported by an Ombudsman or tribunal with statutory authority. Thirdly, the regulations of UIDAI, RBI and SEBI are to be reviewed periodically to ensure that exclusionary practices are identified and rectified. Lastly, policymakers need to make sure that PwDs are engaged in policymaking to help inform the formulation of digital governance systems.

Accessibility is not just an issue of disability rights in e-KYC; it also highlights the importance of fairness, accountability, and dignity within the digital era. In Pragya Prasun, the Supreme Court proposed reforms that reflect the need to make digital governance inclusive, ensuring that rights enshrined in the Constitution are accessible to all citizens, regardless of ability or disability, in an increasingly digital society.

Conclusion

The ease with which e-KYC systems are accessible to people with disabilities is a crucial test of India’s administrative law system. The Supreme Court’s decision in Pragya Prasun indicates an understanding that governance solely through technology should not come at the expense of inequity and alienation. The availability of authentication methods, clear procedures, and timely redress of grievances is not only a practical concern but also a constitutional requirement rooted in dignity, equality, and fairness. India can become a leader in overcoming accessibility issues by prioritising digital governance and aligning with global human rights standards. However, this will only be achievable through legislative protections, ongoing supervision, and active involvement of disabled individuals in policymaking. Ultimately, the availability of e-KYC procedures is symbolic because delivering technological advancement to all citizens is essential. For this, administrative law must be employed to ensure fairness and inclusiveness in the digital age.