Case Brief: Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Add a comment

By: Anushka Singh

Title: Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: (2025) INSC 599
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud (C.J.), J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2025
Petition Type: Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution

Introduction

The landmark judgment in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. And Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.(2025 INSC 599, decided on April 30, 2025)[1] the Supreme Court addressed the issue of systemic exclusion of persons with disabilities from India’s digital verification systems. The consolidated petitions of Pragya Prasun and Amar Jain presented the intersection of technology, law, and equality to the lead. The petition filed by an acid attack survivor Prasun highlighted the issues faced by facial recognition – based verification, on the other hand Jain, a, visually impaired lawyer, exposed the inaccessibility of the screen- dependent digital system. Together, they challenged necessary “liveness” tests for e-KYC procedures which includes tests like blinking, smiling, or moving your face in front of the camera, which effectively prevents acid attack survivors and visually impaired individuals from accessing essential services such as banking, insurance, and telecom. The “liveness test” is used in Adhaar authentication and KYC verification, it is a type of security system in biometric authentication that is done to make sure that whether the biometric data is given by a real and living person.

The Supreme Court recognized digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21 and issued nearly twenty directions to regulators like RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, and DoT, successfully made facilities like telecom and banking available to people with disabilities. Thus, the judgment demonstrated a turning point in the mainstreaming inclusivity into India’s digital governance framework.[2]

Facts of the Case

The petition by Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. And Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.(2025 INSC 599, decided on April 30, 2025) challenged the significant issues that persons with disabilities face when it comes to accessing India’s digitized know your customer (KYC) verification processes. In recent years the department of telecommunication and many regulators like IRDAI, SEBI, RBI has shifted towards digital – first KYC which includes mandatory “liveness tests” such as smiling, blinking, or moving face infront of the camera , and screen based identification for identity authentication.[3] While these measures were designed to prevent fraud, it inadvertently prevented people with disabilities, facial disfigurements. Visual impairments, or other disabilities from accessing essential facilities such as SIM cards, insurance, bank accounts, and pensions.

Petition presented by an acid attack survivor Pragya Prasun, and a visually impaired lawyer, Amar Jain, approached the Supreme Court under Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that in accessibility of digital verification violated their fundamental right under Article 14 and 21, along with the statutory protection provided under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD).

Issues and Legal Questions

The main legal question before the Supreme Court in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. And Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 599) were:

  1. Whether inaccessible e KYC procedures which includes mandatory “liveness tests” such as blinking, smiling, and moving face infront of the camera or screen – based navigation violated the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution?
  2. Whether the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, makes it mandatory for the service providers and regulators to make their digital system fully accessible?
  3. Whether digital access and inclusion forms a part of fundamental right that the state must guarantee?

 Court’s Reasoning and Ratio Decidendi

In Pragya Prasun & Ors. And Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 599), the Supreme Court held that digital services are now part of fundamental rights and any barriers that prevents persons with disabilities in inaccessibility of these  services will violate their fundamental right under Article 14 and 21.

The court found out that rules requiring people to blink, smile, or move their heads for e- KYC verification unfairly excluded people with disabilities, visual impairments and facial disfigurement from accessing the essential services because the digital KYC process requires liveness checks like blinking, smiling, or moving the head. The court held that these requirements creates barriers for the disabled persons from accessing services like banking, telecom, and other essential services, which is unacceptable.

The judges stressed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 makes it obligatory for both the government and private companies to ensure accessibility in their system. The Court relied on earlier case like Disabled Rights Grp. v. Union of India, (2022) 4 S.C.C. 321 (India)[4] and Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2016) 10 S.C.C. 494 (India),[5] which recognized inclusivity as a constitutional mandate rather than a matter of benevolence.

Therefore, the Court issued an order to regulators like SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and DoT to make-KYC inclusive and declared that digital access is a part of fundamental right. The Court also directed the service providers to use alternative methods such as OTP’s, biometric, and paper- based verification. [6]

Critical Analysis

The ruling in Pragya Prasun & Ors. And Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 599) serves as a milestone in strengthening the disability rights in digital era. The Courts decision rightly makes it clear that access to technology and digital infrastructure has become a necessity and not a privilege. The courts recognized the fact that denying essential services to persons with disability such as banking, insurance, telecom, and financial transaction which are primarily accessed through digital platforms not only excludes them but also deprives them of their fundamental rights that is right to life and dignity.

The Court relied on case like Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India (2022) and Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2016)which shows judicial recognition towards inclusivity. The judges relied on Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which shows a progressive step forward towards ensuring accountability.

Nevertheless, the judgment still contains certain limitations. While the court ordered regulators like SEBI, RBI. IRDAI and DoT to include alternative for KYC but did not provided any concrete methods or technical standards which can cause uneven compliance or delayed action by the regulators.[7] Moreover, the court did not provided any guidelines to address the financial and infrastructure challenges that may come while implementing accessible digital systems nationwide.

Despite all these gaps the ruling still marks a significant shift in enhancing the digital future of India along with alerting the state and private actors of their constitutional duties.

Conclusion

The Department of Telecommunications’ July 2025 directive is a clear example of Supreme Court’s ruling in Pragya Prasun & Amar Jain v. Union of India (April 2025), which made it clear that inaccessibility of KUC system based solely on “liveness checks” with specific facial gestures leads to systematic exclusion of PwDs thereby violating there fundamental rights under Article 21 and 14 of the constitution along with Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The reserve bank of India has affirmed that banking services must be accessible to PwDs irrespective of the Liveness checks. There should be alternatives KYC methods for PwDs like e-KYC, paper- based KYC, self- KYC.

The potential impact the judgment can be seen in reshaping the future policies and making it obligatory for the regulators like SEBI, RBI, IRDAI and DoT to take necessary measures in order to make digital services available to everyone which will eventually push the regulators to include accessibility requirements into all the digital service frameworks. The ruling makes it clear that accessibility is a legal duty rather than a voluntary initiative.[8]

While the judgment reflects a progressive take of the Supreme Court but there are certain aspects that leaves a room for future judicial or legislative intervention. Firstly there should be detailed technical guidelines from the regulators like SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and DoT on how to make digital KYC accessible to PwDs. Lack of clear and concise directives may lead to technical irregularities. Secondly, the ruling fails to provide a monitoring mechanism. There should be a system for grievance redress, periodic reporting, and regular audits to make sure that accessibility compliance are being followed by the service providers.

Bibliography

Primary Source (Case)

  1. Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., (2025) INSC 599 (India).
  2. Disabled Rights Grp. v. Union of India, (2022) 4 S.C.C. 321 (India).
  3. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2016) 10 S.C.C. 494 (India).

Secondary Sources (Articles, News Reports, Blogs)

  1. Ashish Kumar Bhargava, She Could Not Blink for Bank KYC. How It Led to Landmark Top Court Verdict, NDTV (Apr. 30, 2025), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/how-acid-attack-survivors-kyc-struggle-led-to-top-courts-landmark-verdict-8294358.
  2. Bhadra Sinha, An Acid Attack Survivor Could Not Blink for Bank KYC. Then She Moved Supreme Court, THE PRINT (Apr. 30, 2025), https://theprint.in/judiciary/an-acid-attack-survivor-could-not-blink-for-bank-kyc-then-she-moved-supreme-court/2610372/.
  3. John Simte, Access Denied? Disability and Digital Identification in India: Reflections after Pragya Prasun and Amar Jain, OXFORD HUMAN RIGHTS HUB (May 29, 2025), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/access-denied-disability-and-digital-identification-in-india-reflections-after-pragya-prasun-and-amar-jain/.
  4. “Pragya Prasun v. Union of India”: Establishing the Fundamental Right to Accessible Digital-KYC for Persons with Disabilities, CASEMINE (May 1, 2025), https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/%E2%80%9Cpragya-prasun-v.-union-of-india%E2%80%9D%3A-establishing-the-fundamental-right-to-accessible-digital-kyc-for-persons-with-disabilities/view.
  5. Supreme Court Mandates Digital Accessibility – Action Points for Banks and NBFCs, VINOD KOTHARI & CO. (Aug. 19, 2025), https://vinodkothari.com/2025/08/supreme-court-mandates-digital-accessibility-action-points-for-banks-and-nbfcs/.
  6. Subimal Bhattacharjee, SC Ruling on Digital Accessibility as Part of Right to Life and Liberty Can Bridge the Digital Divide, ECON. TIMES (Apr. 30, 2025),

[1] Praya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 599 (India).

[2] Ashish Kumar Bhargava, She Could Not Blink for Bank KYC. How It Led to Landmark Top Court Verdict, NDTV(Apr. 30, 2025)

[3] Bhadra Sinha, An Acid Attack Survivor Could Not Blink for Bank KYC. Then She Moved Supreme Court, THE PRINT (Apr. 30, 2025)

[4] Disabled Rights Grp. v. Union of India, (2022) 4 S.C.C. 321 (India).

[5] Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2016) 10 S.C.C. 494 (India).

[6] “Pragya Prasun v. Union of India”: Establishing the Fundamental Right to Accessible Digital-KYC for Persons with Disabilities, Casemine (May 1, 2025)

[7] Supreme Court Mandates Digital Accessibility – Action Points for Banks and NBFCs, VINOD KOTHARI & CO. (Aug. 19, 2025)

[8] Subimal Bhattacharjee, SC Ruling on Digital Accessibility as Part of Right to Life and Liberty Can Bridge the Digital Divide, Econ. Times (Apr. 30, 2025)

Leave a comment