When an identity check becomes a barrier
The judgment describes difficulties with tasks such as blinking, positioning a face inside a frame and navigating interfaces that do not work with screen readers. Petitioners included acid-attack survivors with facial or eye injuries, alongside Jain. The problem concerned the design of verification processes used for services such as banking and telecommunications. A person could have the required identity documents and still be unable to complete the procedure. The court treated accessibility and reasonable accommodation as rights under India’s disability legislation. [1]
What the court directed
The directions included alternatives to eye-blinking checks, periodic accessibility audits and participation by blind people in user testing. They also required a mechanism for human review when accessibility barriers caused a verification application to be rejected, alongside a dedicated complaints process. These measures connect technical design with accountability: someone must be able to challenge a system that excludes them. The judgment set obligations for the respondent authorities and regulated entities; it did not establish that every service had already become accessible. [1]
A lawyer working from lived experience
Jain is a co-founder of Mission Accessibility, which describes itself as a nonprofit founded by two blind lawyers, Jain and Rahul Bajaj. Its stated work combines legal reform, policy advocacy, research and training. The organisation’s public resources also outline how people can document accessibility problems and escalate complaints, with templates supporting that process. This places individual experience alongside legal expertise: the person encountering a barrier can help identify the problem, while organised advocacy seeks changes affecting other users. The organisation’s description is an account of its own work, rather than an independent assessment of its results. [3]
From a judgment to service delivery
On 23 May 2025, the Securities and Exchange Board of India published a circular specifically addressing accessible and inclusive digital customer verification for persons with disabilities. That is a documented regulatory follow-up in one sector. It should be distinguished from evidence about how every provider’s website or application behaves. The practical importance of the court’s approach lies in connecting accessible verification with testing, alternative procedures and a route to human review. Users need a usable path through the whole process, including when automated checks fail. [1]