On 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India (“SC”), in its landmark decision in Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine SC 993] (“Pragya Prasun Case”), unequivocally affirmed that the right to digital access constitutes an intrinsic facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. By rooting digital accessibility in the constitutional guarantee of dignity and autonomy, the Court signalled a decisive shift towards a jurisprudence that adapts foundational principles to the realities of an increasingly digitised society, where access to essential services is largely mediated through technology.

Well before this pivotal judgment, India, in 2007, had embraced international commitments to disability rights by signing and ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“UNCRPD”). The Convention imposes three crucial obligations on States parties: first, to respect the rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities; second, to protect such individuals from rights violations by third parties; and third, to fulfil these rights through appropriate legislative, administrative and policy measures.

In furtherance of its UNCRPD commitments, the Indian Parliament enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), and issued the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (“RPwD Rules”). Together, these instruments form the cornerstone of India’s disability rights regime. Crucially, the Rules align domestic standards with the internationally recognised Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) promulgated by the World Wide Web Consortium, thereby providing a uniform technical benchmark for public and private establishments alike.

Yet, notwithstanding the formal notification of these standards, sector-wide compliance remains uneven. Numerous digital interfaces continue to fall short of the WCAG thresholds, depriving persons with disabilities of meaningful access to e-governance portals, banking applications, e-commerce sites and educational platforms. Against this mosaic of progress and persisting gaps, we analyse the extant legal framework governing digital accessibility, assess the implications of recent judicial and regulatory developments, and delineate the concrete obligations that the RPwD Act imposes on establishments. In doing so, we seek to chart a path towards the creation of truly inclusive digital environments that give practical effect to both constitutional guarantees and India’s international commitments.

Statutory Landscape

The provisions of Section 46 read with Section 40 of the RPwD Act mandate that all service providers ensure their services comply with the accessibility rules (or any amendments thereto) notified by the Central Government, within two years of their notification. Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules provides specific guidelines on accessibility, one of which pertains to information and communication technology (“ICT”).

The term ICT, as defined under the RPwD Act, encompasses a wide array of services, including telecommunications, web platforms, electronic services, digital and print media, and consumer electronics. Rule 15(1)(c) of the RPwD Rules mandates every establishment including private establishments to comply with the following: (i) website standard as specified in the guidelines for Indian Government websites, as adopted by Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Government of India; (ii) that documents to be placed on websites should be in ePUB or OCR based pdf format; and (iii) that all ICT-based products and services, including websites, apps, digital equipment, and accessories for persons with disabilities, comply with the accessibility standards set forth in IS 17802 (Part 1), 2021 and IS 17802 (Part 2), 2022, issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards which closely align with the WCAG (collectively referred to as “BIS Standards”).

The BIS Standards provide comprehensive guidelines for ensuring accessibility in ICT-based products and set requirements for text readability, navigation, and compatibility with screen readers, while also ensuring that devices feature voice controls, tactile interfaces, and compatibility with assistive technologies like hearing aids and screen magnifiers in websites and apps.

Enforcement of Digital Accessibility Standards

Despite the statutory framework mandating digital accessibility, persistent non-compliance by private establishments has prompted a series of judicial interventions. These developments have played a crucial role in clarifying and reinforcing the legal obligations of private entities under the accessibility regime. Below, we discuss some of the landmark cases that have shaped the enforcement landscape in relation to the responsibilities of private establishments in ensuring digital accessibility.

Practo Case

In 2022, in Rahul Bajaj v. The Director, Practo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, the complainant alleged before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (“CCPD”) that the Practo iOS application is inaccessible due to unlabelled and inaccessible buttons and pages. While Practo contended that it was not bound by accessibility requirements, the CCPD rejected these arguments, holding that a combined reading of Section 46 of the RPwD Act and Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules mandates private IT service providers to ensure accessibility for persons with disability. The CCPD further held that the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) and the BIS Standards apply to private establishments and Practo was directed to make its application accessible within nine months, though no penalty was imposed.

Following this order, the CCPD issued similar directions to private platforms such as MakeMyTrip, Ola Cabs, and Paytm, requiring compliance with the RPwD Act and applicable accessibility standards.

Rajive Raturi case

In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India [2024 INSC 858] (“Rajive Raturi case”), a visually impaired petitioner sought accessible public spaces and services for persons with disabilities. Despite repeated SC directions, the Union and State Governments failed to fully comply with eleven mandated action points covering public infrastructure, transport systems, and the ICT ecosystem, often filing incomplete or inconsistent reports.

Due to the lack of progress, in November 2023, the SC appointed the Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR University (“NALSAR-CDS”) to conduct a nationwide assessment. The report revealed widespread accessibility gaps and highlighted how intersecting factors like caste, gender, and economic status further marginalize persons with disabilities.

On reviewing the report, the SC reaffirmed the Central Government’s obligation under Section 40 of the RPwD Act to prescribe binding, enforceable accessibility standards. The Court examined Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules and noted that while it uses mandatory language ‘shall’, its content remained largely recommendatory, with guidelines lacking enforceable norms.

In its judgment dated November 8, 2024, the SC observed that the bulk of the these ‘standards’ were, in fact, merely guidelines issued by various ministries, which, both in nomenclature and substantive value, failed to create non-negotiable, enforceable standards. Accordingly, the SC was of the view that Rule 15(1), in its current form, fails to prescribe a non-negotiable floor of accessibility standards, instead creating merely aspirational ceilings. Such a framework, the Court held, undermines the intent of the RPwD Act and is ultra vires the same.

Consequently, the SC directed the Union Government to define mandatory, enforceable accessibility standards within three months, i.e. by February 08, 2025, with progressive compliance with Rule 15 to continue until the new standards are implemented. The matter was scheduled for a follow-up hearing on April 4, 2025, where the Union informed the Court that a committee had been formed to address the issues raised in the November 2024 judgment. The Union requested an additional six months to complete the process.

Pragya Prasun Case

It is in this backdrop that the SC passed the landmark judgment in the Pragya Prasun Case where writ petitions filed by acid-attack survivors with permanent facial and eye disfigurements and by an individual with 100% blindness, challenging the inaccessibility of digital KYC, e-KYC and video KYC processes, which prevented them from opening a bank account and purchasing a SIM card from telecom providers were heard. The petitioners contended that prevailing ‘liveliness’ checks which is part of the digital KYC process including blinking or reading on-screen text, were impossible for them to perform, thereby excluding them from essential financial, telecommunications and government services in violation of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. They also argued that regulated entities routinely failed to comply with the ICT accessibility standards prescribed under Rule 15(1)(c) of the RPwD Rules. The respondents included the Union of India, the Reserve Bank of India, Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), among others.

Placing reliance on Rule 15(1)(c) of the RPwD Rules, the Court held that the inability to satisfy existing liveness criteria created an impermissible barrier to accessing services, thereby infringing the right to life and dignity. It directed all sectoral regulators to ensure that their regulated entities provide accessible alternatives for conducting digital KYC and to sensitize personnel to assist persons with disabilities. While the Court referred to the Rajive Raturi case, noting that Rule 15 had been criticized for lacking mandatory force, but without engaging with the finding that Rule 15 is ultra vires the RPwD Act.

The Pragya Prasun decision thus appears to reinforce compliance expectations under the existing Rule 15 framework, notwithstanding the ongoing process to revise it in light of Rajive Raturi case.

In furtherance of the Pragya Prasun judgment, SEBI issued a circular dated July 31, 2025 mandating all SEBI-regulated entities, to ensure their digital platforms comply with the RPwD Act, 2016 and corresponding rules, with specific reference to Rule 15(1)(c) and the accessibility standards prescribed therein, setting out a phased compliance timeline with completion of audit and remediation of any non-compliance within six months i.e. by January 31, 2026.

Recent CCPD Actions

We have recently also come across a press report (please see here) of enforcement actions taken by the CCPD that has resulted in penalties being imposed on various establishments for non-compliance with the digital accessibility standards provided under the RPwD Act read with the RPwD Rules. The enforcement actions appear to have been taken as part of the suo moto proceedings initiated by the CCPD against Government and private establishments, in view of the petitions filed for non – compliance with the prescribed digital accessibility standards.

By way of an order passed on July 30, 2024 (please see here (page 85)), the CCPD had directed the respondent establishments to have their websites/apps audited for digital accessibility compliance by an accessibility expert who holds certification from the International Association of Accessibility Professionals. The CCPD had provided specific timelines for these submissions and warned establishments of potential fines being imposed for non-compliance in accordance with the RPwD Act.

First strike: Following the expiry of the initial compliance deadline, the CCPD took their first enforcement action in February 2025 (please see order here), imposing fines of INR 10,000 each on 155 establishments that had failed to meet the compliance requirements in relation to the accessibility standards. These establishments were given additional time to rectify their non-compliance and were cautioned of enhanced penalties if they continued to fail to meet the prescribed standards.

Second strike: During the proceedings dated June 20, 2025, it was observed by the CCPD that many establishments either failed to appoint the required certified auditors, did not submit the mandated audit reports, or failed to initiate any compliance processes despite the extended deadline provided until mid-June 2025. Consequently, as per the press reports, the CCPD has imposed enhanced fines of INR 50,000 each on 96 establishments, including various Ministries of the Central Government, Government Departments, and private organisations.

Third strike?: The CCPD had scheduled a further compliance review for July 2025 and has cautioned that continued non-compliance may result in further enhanced fines imposed of up to INR 5,00,000. This order is not yet available in the public domain.

Introduction of Draft Non-Negotiable Accessibility Rules for the ICT Sector

Pursuant to the SC’s directions in the Rajive Raturi case, the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities has begun issuing draft non-negotiable accessibility rules across various sectors. Draft rules have already been introduced for the products sector and the transport and mobility sector, and most recently, for the ICT sector.

The draft ICT Accessibility Rules (“Draft ICT Rules”), released for public consultation, build upon the existing BIS Standards for digital accessibility while introducing additional requirements to address sector-specific gaps. To support this process, an ICT core group was constituted to identify challenges and develop a framework of non-negotiable requirements. Among the key proposals is the introduction of an Accessibility Conformance Report (“ACR”), a self-declaration document prepared by manufacturers, service providers, or developers of ICT products and services, outlining the extent of their compliance with the BIS Standards. The Draft ICT Rules propose to require every establishment to ensure that its suppliers or developers furnish an ACR and such ACR shall be kept updated in case of any substantial upgrade, addition of new features or functionalities, etc., which may affect the accessibility of the product, service, or content.

The Draft ICT Rules also propose that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology will create a portal for registration of ICT products by the establishments and ACRs will be required to be uploaded to this portal to enable regulatory oversight and public transparency.

While the overarching framework remains aligned with existing BIS Standards, the Draft ICT Rules seek to create a binding, enforceable baseline of accessibility requirements, replacing the largely aspirational guidelines under the current RPwD Rules. Establishments will be required to comply with these standards within six months of their notification. These rules have not yet been finalised.

Conclusion & Way Forward

Digital accessibility has become increasingly central to ensuring the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in public life, especially since most essential services such as banking, education and governance continue to shift to digital platforms. Recognising these changes in the contemporary era, there have been multiple attempts by the Indian judiciary as well as sector specific bodies to ensure the provision of digital accessibility for persons with disabilities.

While the Rajive Raturi case has created ambiguity about whether new, more specific rules are forthcoming or whether Rule 15 of the RPwD Rules in its current form will continue to govern industry compliance the regulatory and judicial intent to strengthen and enforce digital accessibility obligations is clear. Although it may be argued that the current framework may have limited enforceability, in practice, non-compliance could still result in adverse enforcement actions. The Draft ICT Rules continue to mandate compliance with the BIS Standards as a foundational requirement and are expected to introduce additional obligations. Given this, establishments should maintain alignment with the existing standards to mitigate enforcement risks. This approach is particularly prudent as the forthcoming rules are not expected to dilute the current requirements but rather build upon them.

Given this regulatory landscape, the importance of digital accessibility cannot be overstated. Ensuring equal participation of persons with disabilities in the digital sphere is no longer viewed merely as a policy objective, but as a legal and social imperative that is now being actively recognised and enforced. It is evident that the Government’s approach is to view this issue through a single lens, that of creating and enforcing uniform standards of digital accessibility that all establishments must comply with to facilitate equal participation. While some ambiguity persists regarding the exact set of rules or the hierarchy of standards to be followed, there is no ambiguity in the fundamental expectation: establishments are required to comply with accessibility requirements, and enforcement actions to ensure such compliance will only intensify going forward.