Accessibility requirements and bridging the digital divide

24.05.2025
By Suvarna Mandal and Sanchit Shrivastava

Saikrishna & Associates

Introduction

Digitisation and the internet have become integral and fundamental to our daily lives. Right from critical services such as banking to somewhat lighter services like entertainment, the online world dictates how people live and thrive in society. Unfortunately, many people with disabilities in India do not have easy and equal access to such technologies. It has therefore become important to make digital accessibility a priority, not just from an ethical standpoint but a legal one as well. While digital accessibility as a legal requirement is already embedded within several regulations, there appears to be a disregard for its application and enforcement.

In this digital era, ‘the right to life’ under the Constitution must be interpreted along the lines of technological realities. The judiciary, while dealing with issues of accessibility for persons with disabilities (“PwD”), has expressed its discontent with such social marginalization and is taking measures to ensure equal access to all. Relevant orders and judgments by the judiciary have prompted various ministries to reinforce and uphold accessibility related legal requirements amongst relevant stakeholders. For instance, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (“MIB”), through its recent advisory dated April 22, 2025, has called upon Online Curated Content Publishers/OTT platforms and their self-regulatory bodies to ensure accessibility of digital content for PWDs.

Background

Accessibility in the context of the digital world refers to the design of products, services, systems, technologies, etc., which ensures that all individuals, including those with disabilities, can access, use, and benefit from them fully and independently. This includes not only physical access, but also access to information, communication, and digital platforms.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“Convention”) calls for an environment which removes any barriers that hinder the full and effective participation of PWDs in society on an equal basis with others and sets out explicit obligations of the States Parties to ensure accessibility. India is one of the first signatories to this Convention.

The Incheon Strategy, adopted by India in 2012, offers the first set of regionally agreed-upon inclusive development goals in order to make the rights of the PwDs a reality in the Asia-Pacific region.

Legal Provisions

While the Constitution upholds various individual rights and ‘directive principles’, such as the right to life, right to equality, right to information, and right to education, which generally embodies the rights of PWDs, there is a specific legislation that gives effect to India’s adoption of the Convention. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPWD Act”) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (“RPWD Rules”) recognise accessibility vis-à-vis digital space.
Specifically, Section 40 of the RPWD Act requires the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner, to formulate rules for PWDs, laying down the standards for accessibility for the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, including appropriate technologies and systems, and other facilities and services provided to the public in urban and rural areas. . A plain reading of this provision appears to indicate that it applies only to the government to ensure accessibility vis-à-vis public facilities and services.
However, Section 46 of the RPWD Act extends the applicability of Section 40 to private establishments as well. Section 46 states that the service providers, whether Government or private, shall provide services in accordance with the rules on accessibility formulated by the Central Government under Section 40 within a period of two years from the date of notification of such rules. As per a 2022 order of the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, India, (“CCPD”) in the case of Rahul Bajaj Vs. Practo Technologies Pvt. Ltd, the Court of CCPD stressed that the private establishments are also bound by the provisions of the RPWD Act.
Various other requirements and accessibility standards have been prescribed under Indian laws that are worth examining:
- Section 42, RPWD Act: The appropriate Government must take measures to ensure that all content available in audio, print, and e-media is in an accessible format. Also, PwDs have access to e-media by providing audio description, sign language, and close captioning, and e-goods and equipment which are meant for daily use.
- Rule 15, RPWD Rules: Under this, every establishment is required to comply with the following accessibility standards for Information and Communication Technology (“ICT”). Specifically, under Rule 15(c), the standards for ICT are as follows:
  - Website standard as specified in the guidelines for Indian Government websites as adopted by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Government of India.
  - Documents to be placed on websites shall be in Electronic Publication/Optical Character Reader based pdf format
  - Websites, apps, ICT based public facilities & services, e-goods & equipment meant for everyday use, etc., have to mandatorily comply with the Indian Standard IS 17802 (Part 1), 2021, and IS 17802 (Part 2), 2022, published by the Bureau of Indian Standards.
- Appendix read with Rules 8 and 9, IT Rules, 2021: Publisher of news and current affairs, or online curated content, have to observe the Code of Ethics which has been prescribed under the Appendix to Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules, 2021”). The Code of Ethics requires every publisher, to the extent feasible, to make reasonable efforts to improve the accessibility of online curated content transmitted by it to PwDs through the implementation of appropriate access services.

Role of the Judiciary

Suo-moto cognisance by the CCPD in Case No. CCPD/15519/1101/2024 and Case No. CCPD/15530/1101/2024:
- The Court of CCPD, had taken suo motocognizance regarding the inaccessibility of websites, mobile applications, and other digital platforms of Government establishments and private establishments providing various goods and services online. Subsequently, private establishments providing goods and services online were advised by the CCPD, to make their websites/apps and other digital platforms fully accessible to PwDs by ensuring compliance with the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites and BIS Standards IS 17801 Parts I and 2 in relation to Accessibility of Information & Communication Technology Products and Services.
- Additionally, the CCPD also directed private establishments providing goods and services online to get their websites/apps audited for digital accessibility by an expert certified by the International Association of Accessibility Professionals. The establishments, both private and public, were further directed to submit a compliance report within 7 days, failing which the applicable penalty would be imposed under Section 89 of the RPWD Act, 2016. Lastly, the CCPD directed the establishments to provide their accessibility audit report with timelines to resolve accessibility barriers by 15th September 2024.
- On 23rd August 2024, the Court of CCPD advised the UIDAI to submit whether any steps have been taken to ensure that every PwD gets an Aadhaar. UIDAI was also directed to make the e-Aadhaar captcha accessible within 7 days. It was also observed that captcha is still a roadblock for many websites. It was also observed that if the first page is preventing access, then the compliance of the rest of the pages becomes a moot point.
- The Court of CCPD further observed that payment systems are not ‘visually impaired friendly’. In this regard, the Reserve Bank of India was advised to issue, within 10 days, guidelines pertaining to accessibility. Lastly, the observations and recommendations in the proceedings dated 30th July 2024 were reiterated.
- On 28th January 2025, the Court of CCPD observed that none of the parties (except a few private establishments) were compliant with the directions. The respondents were directed to submit an access audit report before 5th February 2025, failing which the Court of CCPD shall be constrained to impose a penalty under Section 89 of the RPWD Act. It was also directed that the compliance status (which will be displayed on the CCPD’s website) will be continuously reviewed by the Court of CCPD starting from March 2025.
Akshat Baldwa & Anr v Maddock Films Private Limited & Ors
- Aggrieved by the lack of disabled friendly accessibility features in the movies released on the OTT platforms, a writ petition was filed. The main arguments of the Petitioners were that the appropriate government, under the RPWD Act, is obligated to ensure that all content available in electronic media is in an accessible format, and that the PwDs have access to electronic media, including audio description and close captioning.
- Through an order dated December 19, 2024, the Indian film production company, i.e., Maddock Films Private Limited, was directed to ensure that all movies released on OTT platforms are compliant with the RPWD Act and the IT Rules, 2021.
- In furtherance of this order, MIB issued an advisory on April 22, 2025 (“MIB Advisory”), requiring the OTT platforms and their self-regulatory bodies to adhere to accessibility related provisions under the RPWD Act and IT Rules, 2021, for movies released on OTT Platforms.
- The ‘MIB Advisory’ has been issued by the MIB under Rule 13(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, which is the third level of grievance redressal mechanism, wherein it can issue appropriate advisories to publishers.
- Taking into account the provisions pertaining to accessibility under the IT Rules and the order dated December 19, 2024, passed by the Delhi High Court in this case the MIB Advisory states that OTT platforms should comply with provisions of applicable laws, including the RPWD Act, and the Code of Ethics under the IT Rules, 2021. Further, the self-regulatory bodies should ensure that the published content complies with the applicable laws.
Akshat Baldwa v. Yash Raj Films
- A writ petition was filed, which highlighted the challenges faced by PwDs in accessing audio-visual content in both theatres and OTT platforms. The Delhi High Court observed that even private parties have to ensure that reasonable accommodation measures are taken to enable greater accessibility for the hearing and visually impaired persons.
- While the MIB released guidelines for “Accessibility Standards in the Public Exhibition of Feature Films in Cinema Theatres” in 2024, news reports suggest that it is still in the final stages of drafting comprehensive accessibility guidelines for OTT platforms in a bid to promote inclusivity in the digital content space.
Pragya Prasun & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
- On 30th April 2025, the Supreme Court in this case held that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, which necessitates the State to proactively design and implement ‘inclusive digital ecosystems’, serving not only the privileged, but also the marginalized and historically excluded.
- The writs were filed by acid attack victims suffering from facial disfigurement, and those suffering from one hundred (100) percent blindness, seeking directions to formulate rules and guidelines for conducting the e-KYC process, through alternatives, to ensure accessibility.
- While the Respondents (such as the Reserve Bank of India, Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Department of Telecommunications, etc.) have put in place various mechanisms for PwDs, at ground level, the same is not being adhered to. The Petitioners pointed out their issues, including the following:
  - Digital KYC providers do not follow accessibility standards while designing their apps/websites.
  - Presently, thumb impression is not accepted by any of the digital KYC providers.
  - Biometric devices do not follow the IS 17802 Standard on Accessibility.
- The court observed that while digital KYC is the new norm, most platforms do not provide accessibility, and do not take into consideration mobile impairments, intellectual disabilities, etc.
- In order to make the process of digital KYC accessible to PwDs, the Supreme Court gave twenty (20) directions to the respondents and regulated entities, such as following accessibility standards, incorporate alternatives to the ‘blinking eyes’ test for KYC protocols, provide options for sign language interpretation, closed captions, etc.

Our Take

The MIB Advisory and the recent case laws are welcome initiatives towards enabling digital accessibility, inclusivity and equality. Unequal access to digital services, facilities, infrastructure, content continues to be a cause for concern that widens the gap for PWDs.

The Supreme Court in the Pragya Prasun case fittingly observed that “Bridging the digital divide is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life.” Given the active involvement of the judiciary and coupled with legislative changes, there is promise of a better future for all citizens in the digital world.

This article was originally published on Saikrishna & Associates

Accessibility requirements and bridging the digital divide

Our Take

Latest Blogs

Latest Blog

AI’s Habit of Information Fabrication (“Hallucination”): Where’s the Human Factor?

Latest Blog

From Indie Darling to Action Hero: Katy O’Brian on Her Leap from “Love Lies Bleeding” to “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning”

Latest Blog

Building the First “Black Mirror” Sequel: How Production Designer Miranda Jones Upgraded the USS Callister Universe

Start typing and press Enter to search