The Supreme Court of India said in a historic ruling that digital access is a fundamental right that is inextricably linked to the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This historic ruling emphasizes that the government must ensure digital accessibility for all citizens, especially those from rural areas, marginalized communities, and persons with disabilities (PwDs).
What is Digital Access?
Digital Access refers to ensuring that everyone, regardless of their location or physical ability, can access and use digital technologies such as the internet, computers, smartphones, and online services. It involves removing barriers so that essential services, educational resources, financial platforms, and governance tools are available to all members of society without discrimination.
In today’s world, where critical services like healthcare, banking, and education increasingly operate online, Digital Access has become a crucial necessity for leading a dignified life.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Digital Access
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stressed that Digital Access is a constitutional right, not a mere privilege. They ruled that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that the digital ecosystem is accessible and usable for every citizen, particularly backward sections and individuals with disabilities.
The Court issued 20 guidelines to the government aimed at making digital systems, especially the Know Your Customer (KYC) processes, more inclusive. It stressed that accessibility should not remain confined to urban populations but must extend into rural and underserved regions.
Against the backdrop of India’s rapid digital progress, including initiatives like Aadhaar, online delivery platforms, and net banking, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the question of true accessibility had been largely overlooked.
The Challenges Faced by Persons with Disabilities
The case came into focus during the hearing of petitions filed by an acid attack survivors’ group led by Prayag Prasoon and a deaf individual, Amar Jain. Their petitions highlighted the major obstacles faced by persons with disabilities in completing digital KYC verification.
Justice Mahadevan explained that steps required for digital verification — like aligning one’s face within a frame, turning the head, or blinking — are often impossible for acid attack survivors or individuals with facial disabilities. Consequently, these people face unnecessary delays in opening bank accounts or accessing essential services and government welfare schemes.
The Court noted that instead of helping integrate such individuals into mainstream society, a non-cooperative digital environment isolates and marginalizes them further.
Digital Access: Essential for an Inclusive Society
Justice Mahadevan observed that in the modern era, critical functions such as governance, education, healthcare, and financial services are predominantly delivered through digital platforms. Therefore, he emphasized that Digital Access must be treated as a fundamental component of the right to life and not just a matter of government policy discretion.
The ruling makes it quite evident that closing the digital divide is now required. It is a constitutional obligation needed to ensure dignified living, autonomy, and equal representation in public life.
The Rural-Urban Divide in Digital Access
The Court also drew attention to the stark inequalities between urban and rural areas regarding Digital Access. Many rural citizens still suffer from poor internet connectivity and lack of content in regional languages, making it difficult for them to meaningfully engage with e-governance initiatives and welfare schemes.
The Supreme Court stressed that if the government is serious about achieving true digital inclusivity, it must ensure that internet infrastructure, government portals, online learning platforms, and financial technologies are universally accessible.
This includes providing services in multiple regional languages, enhancing internet coverage in rural areas, and developing user-friendly digital ecosystems that cater to people with various disabilities.
Constitutional Backing for Digital Access
In its ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that ensuring Digital Access is the government’s constitutional duty under:
-
Article 21: Right to Life
-
Article 14: Right to Equality
-
Article 38: Directive for Social Justice
These provisions collectively demand that every citizen must be empowered to live with dignity, equality, and freedom. In the digital age, the inability to access online platforms directly impacts the quality of life, making Digital Access fundamental to exercising other rights.
Moving Forward: Bridging the Digital Divide
The Supreme Court’s ruling firmly asserts that Digital Access must be a reality for every Indian, not just a privilege for a select few. Governments at all levels — central, state, and local — must now act with urgency.
Key steps could include:
-
Developing inclusive digital designs that accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.
-
Expanding internet access in remote and rural regions.
-
Creating multi-language digital content for e-governance and educational platforms.
-
Making banking and financial platforms more accessible to those with physical impairments.
-
Training government officials and service providers on digital inclusivity.
By implementing these measures, India can move closer to realizing the vision of an inclusive digital society where Digital Access is truly universal.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India’s acknowledgment of Digital Access as a fundamental right represents a landmark step in advancing the nation’s pursuit of digital equality. As technology continues to shape every aspect of our lives, ensuring that no one is left behind is not only a constitutional duty but a moral imperative.
True progress lies in bridging the digital divide, empowering every citizen with the tools they need to live, learn, and thrive in a digital world.
The path ahead is clear: Digital Access for all — not just a goal, but a right.
Read More Article
