Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on PIL Seeking Accessible e-KYC for Acid Attack Survivors and Persons with Disabilities

Introduction

In a significant development concerning financial accessibility and digital inclusion, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment on two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking inclusive Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures for acid attack survivors and persons with blindness/low vision. The petitions, heard by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, challenge the current e-KYC requirements under the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) KYC Master Directions, 2016, which mandate live photographs and other identity verification measures that pose barriers for individuals with disabilities.

The case brings into focus the legal and constitutional rights of persons with disabilities (PwDs) under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Right to Equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argue that the lack of alternative identification methods in the digital KYC process violates their right to equal access to financial and telecom services, government schemes, and essential facilities.

This article explores the background of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling.

Background and Legal Issues

The PILs and Their Objectives

The first petition, Pragya Prasun & Ors v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 289/2024), seeks modifications in the digital KYC process to accommodate acid attack survivors who have suffered permanent eye disfigurement or burns. The plea urges the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and relevant authorities to provide alternative methods for identity verification, as the requirement for a live photograph is often impossible for survivors with severe facial injuries.

The second petition, Amar Jain v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 49/2025), filed by Advocate Amar Jain—who is 100% blind—raises concerns about the inaccessibility of digital KYC for persons with blindness and low vision. The plea highlights several challenges, including:

• Selfie verification requirements that are not compatible with screen readers.
• Digital signatures using a mouse or touchscreen, which are inaccessible to blind users.
• OTP-based verification with extremely short durations, making it difficult for visually impaired individuals to complete the process.

Both petitions argue that the current KYC process fails to accommodate persons with disabilities, violating the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which mandates reasonable accommodation and accessibility in financial services.

Reserve Bank of India’s Existing Guidelines

The RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, govern the digital KYC process for banks, telecom providers, and financial institutions. These guidelines mandate the submission of a live photograph for digital verification, which is a significant barrier for acid attack survivors and visually impaired persons.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate V.V. Giri (representing one of the respondents) argued that blinking detection is required in digital KYC to confirm a person’s presence, but this may not be feasible for acid attack survivors with severe eye damage. As an alternative, he suggested that facial movement detection could be implemented. However, petitioners contended that even this method remains inaccessible for many affected individuals.

Legal and Constitutional Arguments

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights (Article 14 & 21)

• The petitioners argue that the right to equality (Article 14) is violated when persons with disabilities face systemic discrimination in accessing banking and telecom services.
• The right to life and dignity (Article 21) is compromised when individuals are denied financial independence due to inaccessible KYC processes.

1. Non-Compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

• Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, mandates mandatory accessibility standards, but the existing KYC process only provides advisories rather than enforceable guidelines.
• The denial of financial services due to inaccessible KYC requirements constitutes indirect discrimination against PwDs.

1. Breach of RBI’s Obligation Under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

• RBI, as the financial regulator, has a duty to ensure universal access to banking. Failure to provide inclusive KYC mechanisms violates the spirit of financial inclusion policies.

1. International Legal Framework

• The petitioners invoke India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which mandates equal access to financial services.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Directions

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, directed the parties to file written submissions addressing three key aspects:

1. Existing RBI Guidelines: A detailed analysis of current regulations concerning e-KYC.
2. Deficiencies and Loopholes: Identifying specific barriers in the existing system.
3. Recommendations for Inclusive Digital KYC: Proposing alternative methods for identity verification.

Justice Pardiwala inquired whether banks provide assistance for visually impaired persons during KYC verification. Advocate Ila Sheel, appearing for the petitioners, responded that prompting is not allowed, which often leads to the rejection of KYC applications for PwDs.

The Court emphasized the need for adequate and binding guidelines rather than mere advisories to ensure accessibility for all.

Potential Impact of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

1. Reforming Digital KYC for Persons with Disabilities

A favorable ruling could lead to structural changes in the e-KYC process, compelling banks, telecom providers, and financial institutions to adopt alternative authentication methods such as:

• Voice recognition or biometric authentication instead of live photos.
• Longer OTP durations and multi-channel verification (SMS, email, voice call).
• Bank-assisted KYC for persons with disabilities with trained personnel.

2. Strengthening Disability Rights in India

A judgment in favor of the petitioners would reinforce the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, compelling institutions to comply with mandatory accessibility standards.

3. Setting a Precedent for Digital Inclusion

The case could set a precedent for digital accessibility in other sectors, influencing policies in e-governance, online education, and fintech to accommodate persons with disabilities.

4. Global Implications

India’s decision could inspire similar disability-inclusive policies worldwide, particularly in countries struggling with digital accessibility challenges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s pending judgment in Amar Jain v. Union of India and Pragya Prasun & Ors v. Union of India represents a crucial moment in India’s digital transformation journey. The case highlights the urgent need for inclusive digital infrastructure, ensuring that persons with disabilities are not excluded from essential financial services.

As the apex court deliberates on these matters, its ruling could redefine India’s approach to digital accessibility, setting a benchmark for financial inclusion and disability rights. A decision favoring the petitioners would mark a major victory for digital equality, compelling regulators and institutions to recognize and accommodate the diverse needs of all citizens.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I