Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Full Case Name:

Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(Heard along with Amar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.)

• Citation:
  [2025] INSC 599; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2024, with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 49 of 2025
• Court:
  Supreme Court of India
• Date of Decision:
  30 April 2025
• Bench Composition:

• Justice R. Mahadevan
• Justice J.B. Pardiwala

At its heart, Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025) is not a banking regulation or a digital system but rather a people thing. The petitioners were acid attack victims and the visually impaired that were locked out of the thing that most of us take as a matter of course: access to financial services. Imagine that you cannot open a bank account or even a simple transaction since the system requires you to blink on the camera or put your signature on a touchscreen that you cannot see. That case brought those realities of life into the court. It posed the question of whether technology meant to make life easier could be one of the impediments to strip dignity and equality. The action of the Supreme Court turned a technical case into a constitutional one, as it stated that digital access is not a privilege but a right.

Facts of the Case

Petitioners: Pragaya Prasun and other acid attack victims who were permanently disfigured on the face and eyes. Amar Jain is a 100 percent visually impaired citizen.

Respondent: Union of India (within which is the Reserve Bank of India and controlled financial institutions).

Background: The petitioners were contesting the digital KYC/ e-KYC / Video -KYC regime of India.

Current processes required: Facial recognition, Checks against eye-blinking or other forms of liveness, Clicking a live photograph, Signing on a touchscreen. These needs were unavailable to the disabled in the society like the blind or the disfigured face.

Grievance: The petitioners claimed that the system was discriminatory and not inclusive as it did not offer them the necessary financial services. They argued that this infringed their basic rights in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and rights in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Relief Sought: Guidelines to the RBI and Union of India to make available alternatives in digital KYC procedures. Digital accessibility as a constitutional requirement.

Issues Before the Court

Online Accessibility and Essential Rights. Whether the compulsory nature of the use of facial recognition, eye-blinking, and touchscreen signatures in the digital KYC procedures violates the core rights of the persons with disabilities in the Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and dignity) of the Constitution.

Discrimination & Exclusion Whether the existing digital KYC regime controlled by RBI is discriminatory and exclusionary in nature and has the effect of depriving acid attack victims and persons with visual impairments access to financial services. Statutory Compliance The inconsistency of the digital KYC framework with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which provides accessibility and reasonable accommodation in all services provided to the general population.

Obligation of the State & RBI The issues raised either by the consent or dissent to whether there is a constitutional and statutory obligation of the Union of India and RBI to ensure the accessibility of digital financial systems to persons with disabilities.

Extent of Judicial Intervention. Whether the Supreme Court has powers to provide binding instructions to RBI and regulated parties to implement alternative and available verification procedures (e.g. with human-assisted KYC or biometric substitutes).

Petitioners’ Arguments Infringement of the Fundamental Rights: The petitioners claimed that compulsory digital KYC procedures (facial recognition, eye-blinking, touchscreen signatures) discriminate against persons with disabilities, which were against Article 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and dignity).

Discrimination: The system is discriminatory and inaccessible because the visually impaired individuals and acid attack survivors cannot meet the requirements of a liveness check or a facial scan.

Statutory Mandate: They used the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as accessibility and reasonable accommodation of all services in the country are demanded. The present order was not fulfilling this legal requirement.

Practical Exclusion: Positional impacts identified by petitioners included life implications: being denied access to vital financial services, not being able to open bank accounts, or be sidelined in digital transactions.

Relief Requested: They addressed guidelines to RBI and supervised bodies to offer alternative, available verifications (e.g. human assisted KYC, biometric options, or liveness check exemption).

Arguments (Union of India and RBI) of the respondents.

Security Concerns: RBI and the government justified the digital KYC model as a tactic to stop fraud and guarantee security and financial integrity.

Uniform Standards: They claimed that standardized digital verification requirements are necessary in ensuring standardization and adherence in the financial industry.

Technological Limitations: According to the respondents, the current technology needs to be lively checked and face recognition in order to verify authenticity and any other alternatives can compromise on the integrity of the system.

Accommodation Efforts: They argued that there is an attempt to enhance access, however, that security is not dilutable.

Judgment The Supreme Court of India found that the current KYC digital regime was discriminatory and unconstitutional so far as it denied individuals with disabilities.

The Court instructed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and all regulated organizations to offer convenient alternatives to compulsory liveness checks, facial recognition as well as touchscreen signatures. It identified digital access as a constitutional obligation, which is based upon Article 14, 19, and 21, and supported by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court pointed out that technological inflexibility cannot compromise financial inclusion.

Court’s Reasoning Equality: Non-Discrimination: The Court said that the exclusion of persons with disabilities in the digital financial systems is against Article 14 (equality before law). The fact that access is not a charity does not mean that access should be denied.

Right to Dignity and Life (Article 21): Restriction to financial services is a denial of the dignity and autonomy of persons with disabilities. The Court emphasized that technology should not be used to discriminate against vulnerable groups, but it should benefit humanity.

Statutory Mandate: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 places demands of reasonable accommodation and accessibility of all services in the public. This is the mandate of RBI and other regulated bodies since they are government agencies.

Equilibrium between Security and Accessibility: Although it is true that fraud prevention is essential, the Court found that security does not provide a sufficient reason to bar. The provision of alternatives like human-assisted KYC, biometrics, or liveness check exemption should be offered.

 Judicial Duty: The Court claimed to be a body in making the digital governance consistent with the constitutional values. It gave binding directives to RBI to draft inclusive guidelines within a given time.

This is the Significance & Impact of Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025): Significance Acceptance of Digital Accessibility as a Constitutional Right. The Supreme Court clearly realized that accessibility in digital systems was not a choice but a constitutional provision in Articles 14, 19, and 21. This will increase accessibility as a policy objective to a basic right. Disability Rights Jurisprudence Expansion. The case is based on previous cases in disability rights, but the protection has been extended to the field of digital governance. It supports the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, so that it can be used in the current technological environment. Court of Appeal Push toward Inclusive Technology. The Court pointed out that technology should not discriminate vulnerable groups of people but benefit all citizens. It served as an example of courts that should intervene in cases where digital systems marginalized the targeted communities. Impact Financial Inclusion The disabled can now have a sure access to the important financial services without the barriers of unavailable KYC. The financial institutions and banks have to re-architecture systems to meet various needs. Regulatory Reform RBI has no choice but to release new inclusive digital KYC and similar procedures instructions. It is expected to affect the similar approach to accessibility by other regulators (SEBI, IRDAI, etc.). Broader Digital Governance The case lays a foundation of easy-to-use e-government systems, such as Aadhaar, e-signatures, and online citizen services. It is an indication that any digital practices that exclude can be declared to be unconstitutional. Global Resonance The case puts India in line with the international disability rights laws, including UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). It makes India a stronger country on inclusive digital governance.

Conclusion

Pragya Prasun v. judgment. Union of India (2025) is not just a declaration made by law, but an indication that law has to visit humanity hand-in-hand. This was never really a case of idealistic constitutional doctrines or banking law; it was one of actual individuals whose lives were being left off the bench of the digital transformation. The victims of acid attacks who already have the marks of violence on their body and the visually handicapped who are required to navigate a sighted world were excluded in something as simple as opening a bank account or showing their identity. The fact that the Court acknowledged their struggle made their lived experiences a constitutional account of dignity, equality and inclusion. The rationale of the Supreme Court rings in the ears of most people since it recognizes the fact that technology, though potent, can be inhuman in the hands of those who create it without understanding the human factor. This demand of facial recognition, liveness and touchscreen verification can seem to be an unbiased concept on paper but in reality it established an invisible barrier that had barred some of the most needy citizens behind the barriers of financial participation. By overruling these obstacles, the Court made us conscious of the fact that there is no point in making any progress unless you leave some of the individuals who most deserve your attention behind. The speed and efficiency itself is not the true measure of innovation, but it should be inclusive of diversity and benefit all the citizens. There is also a symbolic value attached to this judgment. Over the decades, individuals with disabilities have been struggling to gain recognition and are regularly informed that getting accessible is a convenience or charity. The Court took a step towards declaring digital accessibility a constitutional right, which raised it to the level of justice. It confirmed that equality does not lie in treating all people equally, but in having systems that are adaptable to different people. This way, the Court made the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 live and brought India into line with the rest of the world in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The effect of this decision will trickle well past the banking industry. It creates a precedent to any digital governance system, Aadhaar authentication and e-signatures, online education platforms and government portals alike. It is an indication that even exclusionary practices that can be unintentional can be declared unconstitutional. This is an effective message as the digital transformation is redefining all life areas in the era. Restoration of dignity is achieved at the human level. It makes sure that the victims of acid attacks do not recall the trauma whenever they are requested to close their eyes and make a face in front of a camera. It does not make the visually impaired individuals rely on anyone to do something as fundamental as having to prove their identity. It provides them with a sense of freedom, independence and the feeling that they are being perceived by the law, they are important and they are safe.

Reference(S):

In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India, [2025] INSC 599 (India), the Supreme Court recognized digital accessibility as a constitutional right, directing the RBI to ensure inclusive KYC processes.