Digital KYC Guidelines Must Ensure Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities, Court Directs Regulators

A bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and J.B. Pardiwala heard challenges to the design and implementation of digital KYC / e-KYC / Video-KYC processes, brought by acid attack survivors with facial/eye disfigurement and a petitioner with 100% blindness, seeking directions to make digital identity verification inclusive and to require reasonable accommodations under the RPwD Act, 2016.

The Court held that digital KYC regimes must be revised to eliminate barriers faced by persons with disabilities and issued comprehensive directions to regulators and service providers to adopt alternative methods of establishing "liveness", ensure accessibility audits, and retain accessible offline options. The Court noted the statutory duty to provide "reasonable accommodations" and to make digital services conform to recognised accessibility standards. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The overall analysis would clearly establish that KYC formalities are needed to verify a customer’s identity, prevent fraud and money laundering, and comply with legal regulations. Consequently, several sectors have currently shifted their KYC formalities to digital means. Though digital KYC has benefitted the general public by making verification processes faster and more efficient, persons with blindness and low vision continue to face significant barriers in accessing and completing these procedures... Such barriers collectively amount to a denial of equal access and violate the accessibility mandates under the RPwD Act, 2016 and results in economic and social marginalization.” The Court directed the Reserve Bank of India to issue guidelines for alternative liveness checks beyond "blinking of eyes", to permit video-based CIP where blinking was not mandatory, and to instruct regulated entities to accept images of thumb impressions and to provide human review and dedicated helplines for accessibility-related KYC rejections. It also mandated periodic accessibility audits, mandatory compliance with WCAG standards, appointment of nodal officers, inclusion of disability data in KYC templates, and continuing availability of paper-based KYC in exceptional cases.

Background The petitions arose after acid attack survivors and a totally blind petitioner reported repeated failures to complete mandatory digital KYC and to access essential services such as bank accounts, SIM cards and pension or investment accounts because liveness checks and signature requirements were inaccessible. Petitioners sought directions to the Central Government, RBI, TRAI, DoT, SEBI, PFRDA, IRDAI and others to frame rules and standards to make digital KYC processes accessible, to clarify the meaning of "live photograph" and to allow alternatives such as voice recognition, movement-based facial cues, OTP-based e-KYC, and thumb impressions. Respondent authorities explained that KYC obligations arose under the PMLA and its Rules, 2005, and that Annexure I to those Rules and the RBI Master Direction on KYC prescribed digital procedures and V-CIP. Many regulators submitted that the guidelines did not mandate eye-blinking as the sole liveness test and that alternatives, physical KYC, and assisted procedures existed; DoT had already allowed paper-based KYC in exceptional cases and issued PwD customer provisions. The petitioners relied on the RPwD Act, 2016 (including the statutory obligation of "reasonable accommodation"), the UNCRPD and precedents such as Rajive Raturi and Disabled Rights Group to argue that exclusion from digital services violated Article 21. The Court accepted that digital transformation must be interpreted in light of substantive equality and held that exclusionary digital practices violated statutory and constitutional obligations. The writ petitions were disposed of with the directions set out by the Court; the bench recorded that respondent authorities had not disputed the grievances and were “committed to assist” in implementing remedies. No costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 599; Writ Petition (C) No. 289 of 2024 & Writ Petition (C) No. 49 of 2025 Case Title: PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.; AMAR JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Counsel names and designations not specified in the reported judgment extract) For the Respondent(s): (Counsel names and designations not specified in the reported judgment extract)