Eye-Blinking Is Not the Sole Test of Life: Supreme Court Directs Inclusive KYC Norms for Acid Attack Survivors and the Visually Impaired

Digital Progress Must Not Result in Digital Discrimination: - In a precedent-setting judgment Supreme Court of India issued a resounding directive to central regulatory bodies including the Reserve Bank of India, SEBI, TRAI, PFRDA and IRDAI. The Court condemned the inaccessible design and discriminatory implementation of India’s Digital KYC/e-KYC/Video KYC processes, declaring that these violated the fundamental rights of acid attack survivors and visually impaired persons under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Opening the judgment with a pointed observation, Justice R. Mahadevan wrote,
“True inclusion requires that technological advancements accommodate the diverse needs of all citizens, thereby fostering an environment where no individual is left behind.”

The petitioners included women who survived acid attacks and live with permanent facial and ocular disfigurements, and a man who is completely blind. They approached the Court with a common grievance—denial of access to essential services such as opening bank accounts, obtaining SIM cards, and registering for pensions and government schemes, due to the digital KYC process being premised on visual tests such as eye-blinking or selfie verification. They contended that this structure not only violated their dignity and autonomy, but also institutionalized exclusion.

The petitioners argued that this system of authentication through live photographs and blinking detection directly contravened provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. They demanded that all institutions be compelled to provide alternative methods of identification, such as thumb impressions, voice recognition, and offline verification.

The central question before the Court was whether a technologically rigid and visually dependent KYC process could be justified under the Constitution, particularly when it excluded persons who physically could not comply. The Court held that such exclusion was not only discriminatory but also legally impermissible.

The bench observed, “No criterion for gauging ‘liveness’ has been defined in any of the guidelines pertaining to the digital KYC process. Regulated Entities have evolved methods like eye-blinking, reading displayed codes, or handwriting visual text—each of which presumes visual capacity. This is exclusion by design.”

Justice Mahadevan made it unequivocal that the burden of inclusion lies with the State and regulated bodies, not with the disabled citizen to find workarounds. He held: “Digital governance must be inclusive governance. Accessibility is not an afterthought or a bonus; it is a constitutional and statutory obligation.”

The Court emphasized that even the interpretation of 'live photograph' under the RBI KYC Master Directions must align with the principle of reasonable accommodation, stating,
“The interpretation of ‘live photograph’ cannot be so narrow as to mandate blinking eyes or visual gestures, especially when such a requirement disables access for a whole segment of the population.”

The Court examined a wide array of regulatory responses from RBI, SEBI, PFRDA, IRDAI, and TRAI. Though some authorities claimed to have issued guidelines allowing flexibility in KYC verification, the Court found that in practice, persons with disabilities faced routine rejection, lack of support, inaccessible biometric interfaces, and non-compliance with accessibility standards.

Addressing this disconnect between policy and implementation, the Court warned: “Adoption of digital processes by regulators and service providers, without accommodating the needs of all, amounts to a systemic failure. It reflects a model of development that ignores the constitutional ethos of equality and inclusion.”

The Court took strong note of how many KYC platforms failed to offer screen reader support, lacked voice-guided camera assistance, and mandated digital signatures while ignoring the validity of thumb impressions, all of which cumulatively rendered the platforms inaccessible to persons with visual impairments.

The Supreme Court affirmed that any refusal to make reasonable accommodations constitutes discrimination under Section 3(3) of the RPwD Act, 2016, and ordered all concerned regulators to issue fresh, binding instructions that:
•    Expand the definition of “live photograph” to include alternative, inclusive criteria such as facial movement, nodding, voice recognition, or assisted verification.
•    Permit offline or paper-based KYC where necessary, especially for persons unable to complete digital processes independently.
•    Mandate all regulated entities to offer equal service access, training of officials, and technical modifications to their applications and interfaces in accordance with international accessibility standards.
•    Implement a robust grievance redressal framework specifically for persons with disabilities.
The Court made it clear that: “The failure to accommodate is no longer a tolerable oversight; it is a constitutional infirmity.”

This decision marks a historic affirmation of digital equality and disability rights in India, pushing back against a technocratic system that had, under the garb of modernization, failed to see or serve some of its most vulnerable citizens. The Supreme Court has now enshrined that "access is justice", and that digital systems must reflect the inclusive spirit of the Constitution.
The Court's final pronouncement echoes a timeless truth: “Inclusion is not a favour. It is the starting point of a just society.”
 

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025