From the Digital Divide to Digital Access: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Persons with Disabilities

Paper Code: AIJACLAV10RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Citation: Advocate Febby, “From the Digital Divide to Digital Access: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Persons with Disabilities", 6, AIJACLA, 75-82 (2026), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/from-the-digital-divide-to-digital-access-an-analysis-of-the-supreme-court-s-jurisprudence-on-perso>

Author Details: Advocate Febby, Advocate at District Court, Chandigarh

Download PDF

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of rapid digitalisation on persons with disabilities, focusing on the shift from a ‘digital divide’ to a framework of ‘digital access’ in India. The digital transformation of essential services such as education, health care, employment, banking, and government services has improved our lives by increasing efficiency and convenience. However, it has also created barriers for persons with disabilities due to inadequate digital infrastructure and a lack of digital accessibility. This digital divide has caused the exclusion of such persons and restricted their full and equal participation in society. The paper explores the evolution of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on digital inclusion for persons with disabilities and highlights how the court has recognised the principles of accessibility and reasonable accommodation as essential components of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It also analyses the latest Supreme Court case, Amar Jain v. Union of India (2025), which marks a watershed moment for advancing digital inclusion. Further, the paper studies the national and international legal frameworks relating to the rights of persons with disabilities and digital inclusivity. Adopting a doctrinal methodology, the study draws on judicial decisions and relevant research. The paper highlights how the judiciary played a very crucial role in promoting digital access from a mere policy matter to the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The paper concludes that ensuring digital accessibility is essential for achieving substantive equality and inclusive justice for persons with disabilities in the digital age.

Keywords: Digital Divide, Digital Access, Persons with Disabilities, Supreme Court’s Judgements, Legal Framework, Digital Inclusion.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV10RP2026

INTRODUCTION

“A disability is only actually a disability when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do.”[1]

People with disabilities face many hurdles in carrying out their day-to-day activities like a normal person. They suffer various barriers that are not just limited to physical accessibility but extend beyond it to include the discrimination and exclusion they suffer from society due to stereotypes and prejudices prevailing in society. Whether it is education, employment, availing healthcare, financial or government welfare services, they are not able to fully participate and feel included because of a lack of proper physical and digital infrastructure in society. This leads to marginalisation of such persons and infringement of their basic fundamental rights to equality and dignity.

In India, for inclusion and protection of the interests of persons with disabilities, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as RPWD Act, 2016) was enacted. It defines the term ‘person with disability’ as a person who is suffering from chronic bodily, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments that cause hindrance in their fuller and effective participation in society equally with other persons when encountering ‘barriers’.[2] The Act has expanded the scope of disability, which is now not just limited to medical diagnosis but to the limitations in society that prevent their full and equal participation in society.[3]  The term ‘barrier’ means various factors like “communicational, cultural, economic, environmental, institutional, political, social, attitudinal or structural factors which hamper the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society”[4] Such barriers are the major causes of injustices, inequality, and systemic exclusion which such persons are facing. Accessibility is the main principle which has formed the foundation of the RPWD Act, 2016. However, there have been no effective steps taken by the government to ensure proper implementation of the ethos of the RPWD Act, 2016. The judiciary has played a very proactive role in ensuring the basic inherent rights of equality and dignity to such persons by giving the right to accessibility the stature of a fundamental right.

DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY

Today is an era of rapid digitalisation and an AI-powered society. Every basic need of humans is met through computers and smartphones. Various digital platforms and infrastructure have been made, which provide various services like education, banking, healthcare, government welfare schemes, etc., for the convenience of the people. The Internet has made access to essential services easier and more efficient. The Digital India Initiative by the government of India has brought sweeping changes in the daily public affairs in the country. But for persons with disabilities, this digital transformation is a bane as they are not able to avail themselves of the digital services because of a lack of a proper digital ecosystem suitable for such persons. In other words, the digital growth in India is not inclusive. A digital divide is seen in India, where basic normal acts like opening a bank account, getting your KYC (know your customer) done, logging into any website or application, getting your biometrics done, verification of identity online, etc., are huge burdensome tasks for the persons with disabilities due to lack of digital sensitivity to the special needs of such persons. This digital inaccessibility is making them more marginalised and isolated from the rest of the world.

Digital accessibility can be defined as making available the digital platforms and infrastructure to every person, irrespective of any disability, and to ensure active participation, interaction and contribution in the digital spaces of every person. The main objective is that no one should be excluded in this digital world. Digital accessibility is a dynamic concept and keeps on evolving as technology evolves. To guarantee digital inclusivity, many new innovations have been made, for example, “voice recognition software, screen readers, speech-to-text systems, Braille displays, and captioned media”, etc.[5]

The digital inaccessibility is causing more inequality and making basic inherent rights like the right to life, personal dignity, freedom of movement, etc., guaranteed by the Constitution of India, more inaccessible. “Digital accessibility is not merely a matter of design, it is a matter of dignity, agency, and legal entitlement.”[6]

As per a study, the situation of persons with disabilities is more worrisome because of digital illiteracy among such persons. It is causing more digital inaccessibility. For example, the Aadhar card is made compulsory to obtain various government welfare services or basic necessities like opening a bank account, getting pensions or rations, etc. For a blind person, an acid attack survivor, an intellectually disabled person, etc., it is very difficult to get their biometric verification done digitally. Hence, most of such persons could not avail themselves of the above service.[7]

LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON PERSONS WITH DISABILITY IN INDIA

India is a welfare state, and the Constitution of India aims to provide social, economic and political justice to all its citizens. Regarding persons with disabilities, to ensure equality, inclusion and accessibility to justice like other citizens, the government enacted the RPWD Act, 2016. The higher courts are also continuously evolving the constitutional provisions to ensure accessibility, including digital accessibility and justice to such persons. Even though we have laws, in today’s digital world, there is a demand for a proper legal framework on digital systems and infrastructure so that such persons are left out of the digital ecosystem.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Constitution of India is a living document. It adapts itself to meet the contemporary social, economic and political issues in our country. The Constitution of India, though, does not mention persons with disabilities; however, it is dynamic and can be interpreted widely to include all the marginalised persons, including persons with disabilities. This is clear in the preamble itself, which seeks to secure to all the citizens justice, including social, economic and political justice and liberty of thought, expression, belief, and faith.

Parts III and IV of the Constitution, i.e., Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSPs), are very crucial in promoting justice, securing access to justice and inclusivity to persons with disabilities in India. The Courts in India played a very important role in ensuring protection and the right to equality, dignity, accessibility (including digital access) and inclusion to persons with disabilities through judicial interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The DPSPs are not enforceable in the court of law, but they serve as guiding principles for the government to make laws and policies in consonance with the aspirations and goals set out in the DPSPs. The state is obliged to secure “the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want,”[8] and to promote “the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the society.”[9]

THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 (RPWD Act, 2016)

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution to make the disability law in India in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory.[10] Till RPWD Act, 2016 was enacted, the disability was viewed through the lens of the medical model. As per this model, disability is considered a medical problem, like an impairment which has to be fixed. But the RPWD Act, 2016 is based on the social model of disability, which is caused by the hardships that people with disabilities face in society, caused by external factors like the attitude of society towards them, intellectual, social and organisational barriers, etc. The focus of this model is not on fixing such persons but on removing these barriers so that they can fully, equally and independently participate in society.[11]

The Act incorporated the principles of reasonable accommodation[12], equality, non-discrimination[13] and accessibility.[14] Section 3 puts a duty on the appropriate government to ensure basic rights to persons with disabilities, such as the right to equality, life with dignity, non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.[15]

Provisions relating to Digital Accessibility under the RPWD Act, 2016

·         Section 12 provides for the accessibility to justice by such persons and puts an obligation on the government to provide facilities for the same.[16] It can include an accessible e-courts website, online dispute resolution services, an online legal aid system, etc.

·         Section 40 is based on accessibility and obliges the Union government's authority to make rules in consultation with the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities, outlining the standards for accessibility across infrastructure, the physical environment, transportation, communication channels, etc., in both urban and rural areas.[17] Rule 15 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, specifies these standards and establishes accessibility rules.[18] Rule 16 mandates that the central government must regularly review the accessibility standards in accordance with new developments in science and technology.[19] 

·         Section 41 – It obliges the government to make the transport system more accessible by providing access to all modes of transport through ensuring the design requirements and standards, and to make roads accessible. It ensures their free accessibility to movements.[20]

·         Section 42- It is the duty of the appropriate government to make audio, print and electronic media accessible to such persons. And to ensure that “electronic media is accompanied by audio descriptions, sign language interpretation, and close captioning; and everyday electronic equipment is compliant with universal design.”[21]

Section 42 is the significant provision regarding digital accessibility under the Act.

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK ON PERSONS WITH DISABILITY

Internationally, accessibility is a fundamental aspect of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006. One of the aims of this convention is to ‘support full personal development and societal participation’.[22] The Convention establishes accessibility as a core principle and highlights two types of barriers: tangible and intangible barriers, which must be removed to enable persons with disabilities to fully exercise their rights. Tangible barriers include inaccessible infrastructure of buildings, transportation, etc., while intangible barriers involve biases, discrimination, digital inaccessibility, etc. The Convention also requires the state parties to take necessary steps to promote and guarantee accessibility as a fundamental right. Urban and rural areas have different environments, so the Convention demands that state parties tailor their strategies to promote accessibility in ways that meet the specific needs of both urban and rural settings.[23]

JUDICIAL ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT CASES ON DIGITAL ACCESS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILTITY

The role of the Supreme Court of India is very important in securing a rights-based approach to disability. Earlier, the Supreme Court was just concerned with enforcing quotas, but now it is promising personhood to persons with disabilities, giving them legal capacity and granting universal accessibility under the RPWD Act, 2016.[24] There is a shift in disability rights movement from merely preventing discrimination to actively and compulsorily taking steps to support and include them. The basis of this approach of the Supreme Court lay in the “recognition that accessibility is not a matter of discretion or convenience, it is a matter of justice.”[25]

·         Reasonable Accommodation

The RPWD Act, 2016, puts a statutory obligation on the state to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. The term ‘reasonable accommodation ' is defined as making adjustments and providing additional support to such persons so that they can enjoy their rights equally and participate fully and effectively in society with others.[26] The Supreme Court in the case of Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission[27] has elevated this principle from a mere policy matter to the essential element of constitutional equality. The reasonable accommodation is held to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and denial of this amounts to discrimination.[28] In this case, a neurologically disabled person has a right to use a scribe in the UPSC’s civil services examinations, and it is an essential part of reasonable accommodation. The duty of the state is a very important part of substantive equality, in which it is required to assess and fulfil the needs of such persons to ensure a level playing field for them.[29]

Substantive equality means bringing about such structural changes and taking steps for the upliftment of the marginalised communities to ensure a level playing field for them. Any failure to take measures for said purpose amounts to discrimination.[30] This principle of substantive equality is enshrined under Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India.[31] Reasonable accommodation is a measure of social justice to achieve substantive equality by treating them sensitively, and by making exceptions, adjustments and providing a support system so that they can access opportunities equally.[32] The core purpose is to remove hindrances that cause social exclusion. Since the needs of people with disabilities differ, reasonable accommodation must be determined on a case-by-case basis through proper communication with the person.[33]

·         Accessibility

Accessibility is essential in promoting justice, inclusion, active participation and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in areas like education, employment, healthcare, etc. It means making the environment, systems, goods, services, transport systems, communication media, etc., in such a manner that all persons can use them independently and equally.  Right to accessibility is crucial to realise fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and other inherent rights under Part 3 of the Constitution of India for persons with disabilities, making it a foundational right.[34]

Accessibility is the removal of those barriers in the physical as well as intangible environment to ensure equal access to all persons. It comes into operation in the beginning, at the time of designing products, services, infrastructure, etc., as per universal design. Whereas reasonable accommodation is more personalised. It is applicable when, in particular cases, things are not accessible or are insufficient to meet the demands of a concerned person.[35]

Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and others[36] is the landmark case that lays the foundation for accessibility rights activism for persons with disabilities in India. The Apex Court of India has held that accessibility is a very important part of the fundamental right to life, dignity and freedom of movement under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It directed the union government “to establish enforceable accessibility standards across public infrastructure, digital platforms, and services, reinforcing the state’s obligation to ensure inclusivity.”[37] The court clarified that accessibility extends beyond physical spaces to include ICT and digital media.  Also, the right of accessibility in the social model approach is not limited to making existing infrastructure accessible, but also making new accessible infrastructures. It emphasised that it is not a new branch of human rights, but it is inherent in already recognised human rights.[38] This case focuses on a rights-based approach for persons with disabilities.

Justice DY Chandrachud gave his opinion in this judgment that accessibility is not a charity act, but it is a very important constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This case puts the burden on the state to provide access to such persons, and it is not the obligation of such persons to demand access.[39]

Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in Judicial Services[40] The Supreme Court held that the RPWD Act, 2016, is not an ordinary statute, but it has the holiness of a ‘super-statute’. It has all the essential elements of a ‘quasi-constitutional law’ in the sense that if any rights enshrined in the Act are denied to such persons, it would amount to infringement of the fundamental rights revered in the Constitution of India. The court acknowledged that even though ‘disability’ as a ground is not mentioned in Article 15 of the Constitution, it is still a part of the duty of the state under the Constitution.[41] This case elevated the obligations in the statute to the level of constitutional mandate.

In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic[42], while acknowledging the crucial role of digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, the court stressed the design of the digital platforms related to COVID-19 vaccinations and other essential services in such a manner that these services can be accessible to all and no one is excluded merely due to disability. The case particularly highlighted the inaccessibility of CoWIN platforms to persons with visual disabilities.

Disabled Rights Group and Another v. Union of India and others[43]

The court emphasised the necessity of inclusive education for people with disabilities and the removal of barriers that restrict accessibility and participation.  It highlighted that inclusive development is based on the concept of “Society for All”, where everyone is equally entitled to develop their potential and contribute to society and access social services. The court gave certain directions to the government to make education accessible for all levels of education and highlighted the importance of education in leading a productive and meaningful life.[44] Since nowadays most of the education requirements are fulfilled through digital platforms, the guidelines in this case can be imported to the digital education system to ensure digital accessibility to such persons, especially visually impaired persons, neurologically disabled persons, etc.

Pragya Prasun and others v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India[45]

In this case, the petitioner was an acid attack survivor, due to which her eyes and face were disfigured. Due to this disability, she is unable to perform tasks like blinking, moving her face, etc., to get the live photograph for the digital KYC process. Due to this, they are unable to avail essential services, like opening a bank account, an insurance policy, or other government welfare services. Persons with disabilities face many barriers when it comes to accessing services through digital platforms due to a lack of digital infrastructure and systems to make the websites, applications, etc., accessible to such persons. This creates a digital divide in which there is inequality in accessing the digital content, websites, etc., which increases the systemic exclusion of many marginalised communities, including people with disabilities.

The court held that after reading Article 21 in conjunction with Articles 14, 15 and 38, it is the duty of the state to ensure that digital platforms, government welfare services, financial services, etc., are digitally accessible, and meet the needs of the marginalised people. The court emphasised that removing the digital divide is not an optional political matter but a constitutional obligation of the state to protect and secure the dignity, independence and equal involvement in public affairs. The right to digital access is an important part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the state is bound to design the digital ecosystem in such a manner that every community, whether marginalised or privileged, feels included. Moreover, “the principle of substantive equality demands that our digital infrastructure must be transformed to promote inclusive justice and equality.”[46]

The court also issued 20 directions to ensure accessibility in conducting digital KYC to persons with disabilities. Some of them are:

·         Mandatory accessibility audits by accessibility experts to be held periodically,

·         To bring an alternative to blinking of eyes while capturing a live photo to bring convenience and inclusivity,

·         To provide alternative options for KYC verification, like audio, sign languages, etc., for visually and hearing-impaired persons,

·         Ensure the designs of the products comply with the standards of accessibility,

·         Ensure compliance with web content accessibility guidelines and guidelines for Indian Government Websites,

·         To develop alternative methods, like voice-enabled services, using braille, etc., to deliver government welfare and other public services in a digitally accessible manner,

·         To have a proper grievance resolution system to report issues regarding accessibility,

·         To have a mechanism of human review of KYC applications that are rejected to address and correct accessibility-related issues,

·         To organise public awareness campaigns about alternative digital KYC processes and to provide training to the officials conducting KYC verification, etc.[47]

CONCLUSION

People with disabilities have long struggled to access justice and fully participate in society. Even after the enactment of the RPWD Act, 2016, they continue to suffer because of the lack of ground-level implementation of its core principle—accessibility—and the contemporary challenges of digital inaccessibility. The government’s initiative of digitising services, such as the digital KYC process, is a notable step, but has failed to adequately consider persons with disabilities, which has hindered accessibility to basic services like opening a bank account, Aadhar card services, etc. In today’s era, this digital inaccessibility directly impacts access to justice and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. This emphasises the need for universal design to ensure that products and services, including digital ones, are accessible to everyone, regardless of disability. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly interpreted the Constitution to deliver justice to such persons, whether through enforcing reservation in educational institutions, mandating scribes in exams, or other measures. It has played a vital role in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities by recognising the right to reasonable accommodation and accessibility as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has taken a proactive stance, even during COVID times, by emphasising the importance of digital accessibility in enabling visually impaired persons to access essential services. The Court has given a broad interpretation of the RPWD Act, 2016, recognising it as a 'quasi-constitutional law', whereby any violations of rights under the Act are considered violations of fundamental rights. Recognising accessibility as a fundamental component of the right under the Constitution signifies a shift in the Court’s approach—from merely eliminating discrimination to elevating the rights of disabled persons to the level of constitutional obligations of the State. In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the right to accessibility to include digital access and held that the right to digital access to digital platforms, government welfare schemes, etc., is an essential part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. However, there is a long way to go. The digital infrastructure in India is not equipped enough to include persons with disabilities. The government must make active efforts to implement the RPWD Act, 2016 and the constitutional mandates of the court, as without effective implementation, these rights remain theoretical rather than practical. Moreover, there is a need for an active dialogue between the government and persons with disabilities, so that the actual demands can be known and accordingly steps must be taken to ensure digital accessibility. Digital access is not merely about service delivery; it's about access to justice, equality, and social and inclusive justice for persons with disabilities.

[1] Disabled Right Group and Anr. V. Union of India & ors., 2024 INSC 858.

[2] The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No. 49 of 2016), s. 2(s).

[3]  Supreme Court of India, Handbook Concerning Persons with Disabilities (2024), available at: https://depwd.gov.in/en/document/handbook-concerning-persons-with-disabilities-supreme-court-of-india/ (last visited on April 5, 2026).

[4] Supra note 2, s. 2(c).

[5] Swarnali Das, BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: A Case Commentary on the Supreme Court’s Recognition of the Right to Digital Access Under Article 21, 2, HPNLU Journal of Disability Studies 174 (2025).

[6] Id. at 175.

[7] Id. at 177.

[8] The Constitution of India, art. 41

[9] Id., art. 46.

[10] Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481.

[11] Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Others, 2024 INSC 858, para 28, 29.

[12] Supra note 2, s. 2(y).

[13] Id., s. 3.

[14] Id., s. 40.

[15] Id., s. 3.

[16] Id., s. 12.

[17] Supra note 2, s. 40.

[18] The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, Rule 15.

[19] Id., rule 16.

[20] Supra note 2, s. 41.

[21] Id., s. 42.

[22] The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, Preamble.

[23] Id., art. 9

[24] Aastha Mahesh Saboo, From Paternalism to Personhood: Evolving Jurisprudence on Disability Law in India, 2 HPNLU Journal of Disability Studies 155 (2025).

[25] Supra note 5 at 181.

[26] Supra note 2, s. 2(y).

[27] 2021 INSC 78.

[28] Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, 2021 INSC 78.

[29] Supra note 24 at 163.

[30] Supra note 3 at 4.

[31] State of Kerala v. NM Thomas, 1975 INSC 224.

[32] Supra note 3 at 5.

[33]  Id., at 8, 9.

[34] Rajive Raturi v. Union of India and others, (2018) 2 SCC 413.

[35] Supra note 3 at 13, 14.

[36] (2018) 2 SCC 413.

[37] Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Others, (2018) 2 SCC 413.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Supra note 5 at 182.

[40] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481.

[41] Re: Recruitment of visually impaired in Judicial Services, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481.

[42] Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021, dated 31.05.2021.

[43] (2018) 2 SCC 397.

[44] Disabled Rights Group and Another v. Union of India and others, (2018) 2 SCC 397.

[45] 2025 INSC 599.

[46] Pragya Prasun and others v. Union of India and Amar Jain v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 599, pg. 57. 

[47] Supra note 46 at 57-61.