Digital Accessibility in India: Disability Rights and Government Websites

When a portal becomes a barrier

A person may have a legal entitlement to a scholarship, a public-service benefit or a court filing, yet be unable to access it because the application portal is incompatible with screen readers or relies on an inaccessible CAPTCHA. Such failures are often described as technical inconvenience. In reality, where a digital channel becomes the practical route to a public service, design decisions may determine whether statutory rights can be exercised.

TheRights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016embeds accessibility within a wider scheme of equality and participation. Section 40 addresses accessibility standards; Section 42 concerns access to information and communication technology. The law's objective is not confined to ramps and lifts. Digital systems must be considered alongside transport, buildings and other public-facing facilities.

What the Supreme Court has said

In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 858, the Supreme Court examined persistent inaccessibility and the inadequacy of standards framed without enforceable mandatory content. It directed work on enforceable standards. The judgment supports an account of accessibility grounded in rights and statutory duty. The specific technical requirement in an individual case must still be traced to the applicable rule or standard.

An accessibility complaint should therefore move beyond a general statement that'the website does not work'. It should identify the affected task, the barrier, the applicable standard and the consequence. For example: a screen reader cannot announce a mandatory field; keyboard navigation cannot reach the upload control; an image-only notice provides essential legal information without accessible text.

Accessible by design, not by exception

A helpdesk that manually completes forms for disabled applicants can reduce immediate hardship, but it does not provide equivalent independence. Good systems use semantic headings, labelled forms, accessible error messages, keyboard functionality, captions and documents that permit text extraction. Testing should involve people with different disabilities rather than rely solely on automated software scans.

Public bodies should also ensure that tender specifications for technology procurements address accessibility from the start. Retrofitting complex portals after launch may be expensive and slow. Accessibility is easier to verify when it forms part of acceptance testing, vendor obligations and periodic audits.

Accessibility and reasonable accommodation do different work

Accessibility anticipates the needs of a range of users when a service is designed. Reasonable accommodation addresses adjustments needed by a particular person in a particular setting. A public body may need both: an accessible application form for everyone and an appropriate individual adjustment where a barrier remains.

An office cannot assume that asking an applicant to bring another person is equivalent to independent access. Delegating a benefits application may reveal financial or health information; relying on a helper can also make deadlines depend on someone else's availability. The person's dignity, privacy and practical ability to complete the task should inform the response.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 places these questions within a wider scheme of equality, non-discrimination and participation. Sections 40 and 42 should be read with the relevant rules and technical standards, including their current legal status after judicial directions.

Describe the failed task, not only the disability

A useful complaint might say that an applicant can enter personal details with a keyboard but cannot reach the final submit button. Another might explain that a screen reader announces six identical unnamed buttons, leaving the user unable to identify the document upload control. These descriptions connect the design defect to the public service denied.

Record the URL, date, browser, assistive technology, steps attempted and the point of failure. Preserve the inaccessible notice or document. If a deadline is running, request an accessible alternative and an appropriate extension or acceptance mechanism at the same time as the technical correction.

Testing should cover the whole journey. An accessible homepage does not help if identity verification, payment, document upload or the final receipt is unusable. The Supreme Court's April 2025 judgment on accessible digital processes further places digital access within the rights of persons facing disability-related barriers.

A remedy should include a route that works now

A long-term redevelopment promise may arrive too late for an examination, scholarship or filing. Interim arrangements should preserve the applicant's opportunity while the defect is fixed. They should be documented, easy to find and usable without repeated personal disclosure.

For future procurement, accessibility requirements should be translated into acceptance tests and responsibility for fixing defects. Independent manual checks and testing with disabled users should accompany automated reports. A contract requiring compliance is useful only if the delivered service is checked against it.

A public-law remedy

A practical remedy may require a fixed correction schedule, an interim accessible alternative, accountability for failed deadlines and publication of compliance reports. Courts should not need to become software designers. Their role is to require public authorities to identify enforceable obligations and implement them through competent technical teams.

An applicant who cannot complete the required task needs a usable service within the relevant deadline. A corrected form, accessible document or equivalent interim channel is a more meaningful measure of compliance than a declaration that the portal is available.