Highlights:

Corporate Brief

• RBI Master Direction on Counterfeit Notes, 2025- Detection, Reporting, and Monitoring.
• RBI Master Direction – Facility for Exchange of Notes and Coins.
• RBI Master Circular – Prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances.
• RBI Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Deposits) Directions, 2025.
• RBI circular on Limits for investment in debt and sale of Credit Default Swaps by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs).
• RBI circular on Liquidity Adjustment Facility – Change in rates.
• RBI circular on Penal Interest on shortfall in CRR and SLR requirements – Change in Bank Rate.
• RBI Master Directions – Compounding of Contraventions under FEMA, 1999.

RERA Brief

• Notification dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“UP RERA”) regarding disposal of complaints against un-registered projects.
• Circular No. P/9/2025 dated 11.04.2025 issued by Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“AP RERA”) regarding delayed submission of Quarterly Progress Reports (“QPRs”).
• Order No. MahaRERA/Secy/File No. 27/246/2025 dated 08.04.2025 issued by Maharashtra RERA (“MahaRERA”) on the specifications of the Quick-Response (“QR”) Codes, font size of the MahaRERA Registration Number, and the website of MahaRERA within advertisements published by Promoters and Real Estate Agents.

Intellectual Property Rights Brief

• Public Notice: CGPDTM changed the official domain name.
• The European Commission released a report on Intellectual Property Rights in third countries, Counterfeit & Piracy watch list.
• Andreas Gutzeit vs. Controller General of Patents

NCLT Brief  

• Kalyani Transco v. M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors.

Litigation Brief:  

• PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. AND AMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 Corporate Brief:

 Master Direction on Counterfeit Notes, 2025 – Detection, Reporting and Monitoring.

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/132 dated 01.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Master Direction on Counterfeit Notes, 2025 – Detection, Reporting and Monitoring.

RBI has mandated that all banks ensure machine-based verification of banknotes, particularly denominations of INR 100 and above, before recirculation. Counterfeit notes must be impounded immediately, stamped, and recorded, with receipts issued to the tenderer regardless of their willingness to acknowledge. Banks are strictly prohibited from returning such notes and must report all such detections to the police, RBI, and other regulatory bodies, depending on the volume of counterfeit notes detected.

The direction also introduces stricter compliance and accountability measures. Banks must designate Nodal Officers, install detection equipment, and ensure CCTV coverage of transaction areas. A Forged Note Vigilance Cell is to be established at each bank’s head office for monitoring, reporting, and coordination with law enforcement. Notably, RBI has laid out a graded penalty structure, with fines ranging from notional value recovery to monetary penalties of INR 10,000 per instance for violations such as ATM dispensation of counterfeit notes or failure to impound them. The direction emphasises the importance of training staff in note authentication and reflects a broader push to enhance the integrity of the currency system in alignment with national legal and security frameworks.

Master Direction – Facility for Exchange of Notes and Coins

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/133 dated 01.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

 RBI has issued the said directions to provide directives to the banks on the provision of the Facility for Exchange of Notes and Coins to members of public.

RBI has mandated all bank branches in the country to provide services such as the issuance of fresh notes, exchange of soiled, mutilated, or imperfect notes, and acceptance of coins to the public, irrespective of customer status, free of charge for small transactions. The direction empowers banks to adjudicate defective notes under the Reserve Bank of India (Note Refund) Rules, 2009, and outlines clear procedures for bulk exchanges, grievance redressal, and handling of unfit currency, including scribbled, deliberately damaged, or slogan-bearing notes. Banks are required to display notice boards informing the public about these services and ensure proper staff training and compliance, with any lapses subject to penalties under RBI’s customer service norms.

Master Circular – Prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances.

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/13 dated 01.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

 RBI has issued the said Master Circular to consolidate all instructions related to matters relating to prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning pertaining to advances. These norms, rooted in the recommendations of the Narasimham Committee, are intended to ensure greater transparency and uniformity in the treatment of advances in banks’ financial statements.

Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Deposits) Directions, 2025.

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/134 dated 01.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

RBI has issued the said Master Directions to consolidate all instructions related to Interest Rate on Deposits applicable to banks in one place.

These directions, replacing earlier Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Deposits) Directions, 2016, apply to all banks authorised to operate in India, including commercial, regional rural, small finance, payment, and co-operative banks. It mandates that interest rates on deposits, whether domestic rupee, non-resident rupee, or foreign currency, must be consistent, transparent, and non-discriminatory across customer categories. Interest payments on savings must be calculated on a daily product basis, and specific rules govern premature withdrawals, floating rate deposits, staff and senior citizen benefits, and treatment of deposits in the event of the depositor’s death.

Limits for investment in debt and sale of Credit Default Swaps by Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs).

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/20 dated 03.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

 In exercise of the powers conferred under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”), RBI has issued the said directions to provide for revised Investment limits for FY 2025-26 for different categories.

Additionally, RBI has reaffirmed the aggregate limit for Credit Default Swaps (CDS) sold by FPIs at 5 per cent of the corporate bond stock, setting the ceiling at INR 2.94 lakh crore for 2025-26. The circular provides detailed half-yearly revised limits in absolute terms for each instrument category, with total permissible FPI debt investments reaching INR 14.7 lakh crore by March 2026.

Liquidity Adjustment Facility – Change in rates.

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/22 dated 09.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

 As announced in the Monetary Policy Statement dated April 09, 2025, it has been decided by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to reduce the policy repo rate under the Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) by 25 basis points from 6.25 per cent to 6.00 per cent with immediate effect.

Consequently, the standing deposit facility (SDF) rate and marginal standing facility (MSF) rate stand adjusted to 5.75 per cent and 6.25 per cent, respectively, with immediate effect.

Penal Interest on shortfall in CRR and SLR requirements-Change in Bank Rate.

• Circular No. RBI/2025-26/23 dated 09.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

 As announced in the Monetary Policy Statement dated April 09, 2025, RBI has notified a downward revision in the Bank Rate, reducing it by 25 basis points from 6.50 per cent to 6.25 per cent with immediate effect. This move directly impacts penal interest rates imposed on banks for shortfalls in maintaining the prescribed Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) and Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR). The penal interest rates, which are directly linked to the Bank Rate, have been adjusted accordingly.

Under the revised structure, penal interest for CRR and SLR shortfalls will now be levied at either 9.25 per cent or 11.25 per cent, depending on the duration of the shortfall, representing a decrease from the previous 9.50 per cent and 11.50 per cent, respectively. These adjustments signal the central bank’s intention to ease financial conditions while maintaining regulatory discipline. The updated penal rates reinforce the importance of liquidity compliance while offering marginal relief in the event of temporary shortfalls.

Master Directions – Compounding of Contraventions under FEMA, 1999.

• Circular No. RBI/FED/2025-26/135 dated 22.04.2025 of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

In exercise of the powers conferred under FEMA, the Central Government had notified the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2024, relating to compounding of contraventions under the FEMA.

RBI has issued the Master Directions on the Compounding of Contraventions under FEMA, consolidating earlier instructions and aligning them with the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2024. Effective April 2025, these Directions streamline the process for individuals and entities to voluntarily rectify contraventions of FEMA provisions, excluding those under Section 3(a) relating to dealings in foreign exchange otherwise than through an authorised person.

Under the new framework, contraventions may be compounded within 180 days of application receipt. Applications can be submitted physically or via the PRAVAAH portal, with a fee of INR 10,000 plus GST. RBI Regional Offices and the Foreign Exchange Department (FED) at New Delhi will handle applications based on the nature of the contravention. However, cases involving repeated violations within three years, serious offences such as money laundering or terror financing, or those affecting national sovereignty, as well as cases with adjudication orders, are not eligible for compounding and will be referred to the Directorate of Enforcement.

Real Estate Brief

Notification No. 4116/ UP RERA/ Gen. Reg. 2019, 6^th Amendment/2025-26 dated 11.04.2025 issued by the UP RERA prescribing standard operating procedure for disposal of complaints against un-registered projects

• Under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”), UP RERA and its benches can pass orders with respect to refund of deposited amounts under the Act and its framework, in all types of complaints received from the buyers in respect of projects which have not been registered with UP RERA. The Amendment prescribes a standard operating procedure in this regard.
• The Notification states that despite the mandatory registration requirement for projects in planning areas as under Section 3 of the Act, subject to which sale, advertisement, marketing, booking, offer, or invitation of the project and/or its part(s) were permitted, complaints regarding the violation were being received. It further noted that promoters were also deliberately not registering the projects under the Act, which was a violation of their obligations under Sections 4, 11, 15, and 17 of the Act apart from other responsibilities within the framework. Consequently, a standard operating procedure was developed and notified.
• Complaints of allottees of unregistered projects will be considered by the bench as per the Act.
• The Complainant will be required to provide an approved map of the project, copy of the land records of the project, the registered, local, and residential addresses of the promoter, current email address and mobile number of the promoter, status of the project development stage, copy of the status of completion or occupancy certificate, number of occupants of the project, launch date of the project, and details of RERA-registered projects close to the project in regards to which the complaint is made.
• Complaints will be addressed through a pre-determined procedure. The technical advisor is required to report on the issues pertaining to the complaint within 3 (three) days. The bench will adjudicate the issues of the complaint based on merits, after listening to both the parties. During the pendency of the proceedings, if the bench discovers that the project is not registered despite being required to, then a copy of the complaint will be referred to for action under Sections 3 and 59 of the Act as well, which deal with requirement of registration of projects and punishment of non-registration respectively. Proceedings pertaining to relief will only take place after the registration of the project.
• The complaint for the violation of Section 3 and for penalty under Section 59 of the Act will be heard simultaneously.
• The weblink to the notification dated 11.04.25 is as follows: https://up-rera.in/pdf/6THREGULATIONNOTIFICATION.pdf.

Circular No. P/9/2025 dated 11.04.2025 issued by AP RERA regarding imposition of penalty for delayed submission of QPRs and to provide uninterrupted link henceforth.

• AP RERA has issued the following directives vide its circular dated 11.04.2025:

16. A grace period from 16.04.2025 to 15.05.2025 is granted for submission of pending QPRs without penalty.
17. Publish a list of promoters who have not submitted pending QPRs on the website on 16.05.2025.

• From 16.05.2025 onwards, an uninterrupted QPR submission link will be provided, and penalties will be applied per missed quarter.
• The said circular further provides that if a promoter fails to file 3 (three) consecutive QPRs, AP RERA will disable the submission link and suspend access to AP RERA services like project modification, extension, and closure. The due date of submission of QPRs is within 21 (twenty-one) days of every quarter’s end, unless an extension is granted by AP RERA.
• Penalties for delayed QPR submissions have also been prescribed in the said circular:
• The weblink to the circular dated 11.04.25 is as follows: https://rera.ap.gov.in/rera/DOCUMENTS/Notice/QPR-Circular_Uninterupted.pdf.

Order No. MahaRERA/Secy/File No. 27/246/2025 dated 08.04.2025 issued by the MahaRERA on the specifications of the QR Codes, font size of the MahaRERA Registration Number, and the website of MahaRERA within advertisements published by Promoters and Real Estate Agents.

• As per the Order No. MahaRERA/Secy/File No. 27/246/2025 dated 08.04.2025 issued by the MahaRERA, which has come into immediate effect, MahaRERA has noted that promoters and real estate agents have not been complying with requirements pertaining to: (i) displaying the MahaRERA QR Code as per the prescribed aspect ratio and positioning requirements in the advertisements and promotions; and (ii) showcasing the MahaRERA registration number properly, such that it is clearly visible. Stating that these practices were contrary to the objectives of transparency and consumer protection under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”), MahaRERA made specifications in this regard for promoters and registered real estate agents to comply with by way of this Order.
• As per the said Order dated 08.04.2025:

1. It is mandated that the font size of the MahaRERA registration number and website address in all advertisements or promotions or prospectuses is to be equal to or larger than the largest font size used in the project advertisement’s contact details and address.
2. The MahaRERA registration number and website address are to be placed in the top-right quadrant of the advertisement or promotion, and should be made in a color that ensures high visibility.

• The QR Code is to be displayed correctly at the top-right quadrant of the advertisement, and should follow the prescribed aspect ratio, and should be legible, readable, and detectable by software applications.
• This said Order applies to advertisements or promotions in newspapers, magazines, journals, printed flyers, brochures, catalogues, leaflets, prospectuses, standees at project sites and sales offices, websites/webpages of projects, social media advertisements, and other types of advertisements and promotions.
• The Order further prescribes that failure to comply with these requirements will attract a penalty for each violation or contravention, which may extend up to INR 50,000 (Indian Rupees fifty thousand only), but will not be less than INR 10,000 (Indian Rupees ten thousand only) under Sections 63 and / or 65 of the Act. Failure to rectify the violation or contravention within 10 (ten) days will be construed as a continuing violation or contravention, for which appropriate action may be taken under the Act.
• The weblink to the Order dated 08.04.25 is as follows: https://maharera.maharashtra.gov.in/sites/default/files/Orders_and_circulars/Order46Cof2025_DisplayofQRCodeForntSize.pdf.

Intellectual Property Rights Brief

Public Notice: CGPDTM changed the official domain name.

On May 21, 2025, the Office of The Controller General Patents, Designs & Trade Marks issued a public notice stating that the official domain name of the CGPDTM, has been changed from www.ipindia.nic.in to www.ipindia.gov.in. Accordingly, stakeholders are requested to access the official website through the updated domain.

The European Commission released a report on Intellectual Property Rights in third countries, Counterfeit & Piracy watch list.

One May 22, 2025, the Counterfeit and Piracy Watch List, was published, that describes the latest trends in counterfeiting and piracy, and lists websites and physical marketplaces reported by stakeholders as putting up pirated content and counterfeit goods.

As part of its efforts to strengthen IPR protection and enforcement, the Commission has updated its list of ‘priority countries’, namely countries in which the state of IPR protection and enforcement gives rise to the greatest level of concern for the EU. China remains a top priority for EU efforts to protect the intellectual property rights (IPR) of its businesses, innovators or creators, followed closely by India and Türkiye as second priority countries. Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nigeria and Thailand are third priority countries.

The Commission will use the Third Country Report and the Watch List – both based on input received in a public consultation held in 2024 – to continue its cooperation with the EU’s trading partners in the framework of intellectual property rights dialogues and working groups, as well as within the framework of ongoing technical cooperation programmes.

Both documents are also designed to serve as a source of information for EU rights holders, EU consumers and authorities in third countries. They enable rights holders, notably small and medium-sized businesses, to gain awareness of potential risks to their intellectual property when engaging in business activities in the priority countries. They also sensitise consumers to the risks of purchasing from problematic sources and encourage enforcement authorities to take action to stop the infringements.

Andreas Gutzeit vs. Controller General of Patents 

Calcutta High Court| IPDPTA/7/2024 |

An appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents, rejecting a patent application (“impugned order”) was filed under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Calcutta High Court, by Andreas Gutzeit.

Background

Dr. Andreas Gutzeit filed a patent application (No. 201637000002) in India for an invention titled “Blood Flow Control System and Method for In-vivo Imaging and Other Applications“. Originally filed under PCT in 2014, with Swiss priority, the Indian application entered the national phase in 2016. The invention has been granted in multiple jurisdictions including EU, USA, China, Brazil, and Russia.

Invention

The invention was related to blood flow control systems, devices and methods, in particular to an imaging system for the human body, such as an x-ray and related tomographic imaging systems.

The different aspect of the invention is:

1. To provide a method of controlling and standardizing the distribution of a substance in the human body comprising:
   • the steps of applying a respiratory resistance device to the respiratory system of the body; and
   • injecting the substance into the body and controlling or standardizing the distribution of the substance in the body through the selection of respiratory states characterized by a controlled interaction between the respiratory system of the body and the respiratory resistance device.
2. The invention also provides a method of acquiring in-vivo a series of images of interior parts of the human body, using an imaging system and including:

• • the steps of positioning a body relatively to the imaging system,
  • applying a respiratory resistance device to the respiratory system of the body; and performing the image acquisition step during an inhalation, inspiration or suction phase, during which the body exercises suction against a resistance as provided by the respiratory resistance device.

Arguments by Appellant

1. Although the impugned order by the Controller, included the terms “significant changes” and “new features”, there has been no discussion of the same in the impugned order.

2. In passing the impugned order, the Controller failed to assess whether the amended claims fell within the scope of the unamended claim or not.

3. The amendments were filed in accordance with the Act and warranted re-examination, which the Controller failed to undertake.
4. The Controller’s assertion that the amendments transformed a method claim into a system claim was not backed by a technical assessment of the amended claims in light of the original disclosure.
5. Original claims 18 and 27 clearly indicated that the system was “for use in a method according to any of the preceding claims,” establishing a contextual and substantive link to the original method claims.

Arguments by the Respondent

1. On behalf of the Respondent, Assistant Controller, it was contended that the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

2. That the Appellant by way of an amendment was seeking to change the original claim i.e. method claim to a system claim. Such change is expressly prohibited under section 59 of the Patent Act, 1970 (“Act”).

3. The claim as originally presented in complete specification related only to a method claim and the amendment to a system claim would radically alter the entire scope of the invention. As such, the proposed amendments were not in conformity with the Act.

In the above circumstances, the conversion of a method claim into a system claim was impermissible and broadened the original scope of the claim. Hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference at all.

Order

The Calcutta High Court set-aside the interim order and remanded the matter to the Controller for final decision.

However, the Court made no findings on the merits of the case.

NCLT Brief

CASE STUDY: – Kalyani Transco v. M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors.

 BRIEF FACTS: –

M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (BPSL), one of the 12 major non-performing assets (NPA), infamously known as the “dirty dozen” as identified by RBI, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in July 2017 at the insistence of Punjab National Bank. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) invited claims, wherein claims worth ₹47,204.51 crore of financial creditors and ₹621.37 crore of operational creditors were admitted. JSW Steel, Tata Steel, and Liberty House submitted their resolution plans and after several negotiations, JSW Steel’s plan was selected. After the submission of a consolidated plan in October 2018, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the plan via e-voting. The Resolution Professional filed for the approval of JSW Steel’s plan in September 2019 and the NCLT approved the plan with eleven specific conditions including compliance with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), adherence to all applicable laws, redistribution of profits earned by running the Corporate Debtor during CIRP, and power of the Board of Directors to remain suspended. In April 2019, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed an FIR against BPSL and its directors under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of this FIR, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and issued a passed an order (PAO) provisionally attaching BPSL’s assets. JSW Steel challenged the NCLT’s conditions before NCLAT in February 2020, modifying several conditions to favor JSW, including replacing the Monitoring Committee with a Steering Committee, easing tax compliance provisions, and nullifying redistributive obligations on tainted recoveries. Simultaneously, operational creditors, namely Kalyani Transco, CJ Darcl Logistics, Medi Carrier, ex-promoters, namely Sanjay Singhal, and the State of Odisha challenged the NCLAT judgement. The CoC challenged the PAO before the Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Court stayed the ED’s PAO in December 2019. JSW Steel also offered to deposit ₹19,350 crore in escrow pending the Hon’ble Court’s decision. The Supreme Court in December 2024, with the consent of all the parties, allowed JSW Steel to take over attached properties under Section 8(8) PMLA, treating it as restitution, without deciding the scope of Section 32A IBC.

ISSUES INVOLVED: –

1. Whether JSW Steel’s appeal under Section 61 IBC was maintainable.
2. Whether NCLAT exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying NCLT’s conditions.
3. Whether the ED’s provisional attachment of BPSL’s assets under PMLA could be stayed by NCLAT.
4. Whether the Resolution Professional complied with mandatory obligations under Section 29A and Regulation 39(4) of IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016.
5. Whether appeals by operational creditors, ex-promoters, and government authorities were maintainable under Section 62 IBC.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT: –

1. FIRST ISSUE: – The Hon’ble Court held that JSW’s appeal under Section 61(1) IBC was not maintainable. As a successful resolution applicant, JSW was not an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 61(1), nor did its appeal satisfy any of the grounds under Section 61(3). It was observed that permitting such appeals by successful resolution applicants would open the door to backdoor negotiations and revision of plans CoC’s approval, contrary to the scheme of IBC. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in “Arcelormittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others” to highlight the strict interpretation of eligibility and appeal provisions under the IBC.
2. SECOND ISSUE: – The Supreme Court held that NCLAT exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying several conditions imposed by the NCLT. It reiterated that appellate authority cannot substitute its commercial wisdom for that of the CoC unless it violates Section 30(2) IBC. The Court relied on “ESSAR Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors v. Satish Kumar Gupta” to emphasize the sanctity of the CoC’s commercial decisions and limitations on judicial interference.
3. THIRD ISSUE: – The Supreme Court found that NCLAT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the ED’s Provisional Attachment Order under Section 5 of PMLA. It reaffirmed that issues involving criminal law and public law fall outside the jurisdiction of IBC adjudicating authorities. The Court followed the principle laid down in “Embassy Property Developments Private Limited v. State of Karnataka & Ors.” .
4. FOURTH ISSUE: – The Court found that the Resolution Professional failed to file the mandatory Form H as required by Regulation 39(4) and IBBI circulars. Further, the JSW Steel had not disclosed a 2008 joint venture agreement with BPSL, which raised questions about its eligibility under Section 29A. The Court emphasized that such non-disclosure is material and the RP must verify and certify compliance, as non-compliance could vitiate the resolution plan approval.
5. FIFTH ISSUE: – The Court held that appeals by operational creditors, ex-promoters, and State authorities were maintainable under Section 62 IBC. It adopted a broad interpretation of “any person aggrieved” in line with “Glas Trust Company LLC v. Byju Raveendran and Others” and emphasized that CIRP being an in rem process affects multiple stakeholders.

CONCLUSION: –

The Apex Court set aside the judgement of NCLAT and the original order passed by NCLT approving the resolution plan with conditions was upheld. The Court clarified that tribunals under IBC cannot override the authority of statutory bodies and that the assets of JSW Steel were directed to be handed over to them as a restitution, not as a precedent on interpretation of IBC. The Court also emphasised on the need for full disclosure and certification as well as the need for limiting judicial interference.

Litigation Brief

CASE ANALYSIS: PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. AND AMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [PRONOUNCED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 289 OF 2024 AND 49 OF 2025]

The case was adjudicated by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan.

This case concerns two writ petitions challenging the inaccessibility of digital KYC processes for persons with disabilities. The petitioners argue that these processes violate their fundamental rights under the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. They seek directions to redesign digital KYC systems to be accessible and inclusive.

Facts:

1. The present writ petitions challenge the inaccessibility of digital KYC procedures, including e-KYC and video KYC, for persons with disabilities.
2. The petitioners submit that requirements such as facial recognition, blinking for live photo capture, and reading on-screen text effectively exclude many individuals with disabilities from accessing essential services.
3. It is contended that these barriers infringe upon the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, and violate the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
4. The petitioners seek appropriate directions to ensure that digital KYC processes are made accessible and inclusive, thereby safeguarding their constitutional and statutory rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.

Issue:

1. Whether the existing digital KYC processes infringed upon the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities, specifically the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), equality before the law (Article 14), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 15).
2. Additionally, the Court examined the obligation of the State and regulatory authorities to provide reasonable accommodations and accessible alternatives in digital KYC processes under the RPwD Act, 2016.

Court’s observations and findings:

1. The Supreme Court recognised that while digital KYC processes improve efficiency, they impose significant barriers for persons with blindness and low vision.
2. It held that Article 21 must be reinterpreted to reflect the increasing reliance on digital platforms for essential services and opportunities.
3. The Court highlighted the digital divide, which excludes not only persons with disabilities but also rural, senior, and economically weaker populations.
4. It ruled that State obligations under Articles 21, 14, 15, and 38 require accessible digital infrastructure for all vulnerable and marginalised groups.
5. Digital access was deemed an essential component of the right to life and liberty, requiring proactive and inclusive digital ecosystems.

Directions issued:

1. The Supreme Court directed authorities and regulated entities to ensure accessibility in digital KYC processes by appointing Nodal Officers, conducting periodic accessibility audits, and adopting inclusive design practices for persons with disabilities.
2. The RBI was ordered to issue guidelines for alternative, disability-friendly verification methods beyond eye-blinking, to accept thumb impressions, and to ensure compliance with accessibility standards like WCAG 2.1 and GIGW for all digital platforms.
3. The Court also mandated human review of rejected KYC applications, dedicated helplines for persons with disabilities, public awareness campaigns, and staff training on disability awareness, ensuring a barrier-free and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Final Order:

1. The Supreme Court held that the right to digital access is an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The State is required to design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that benefit both privileged and marginalised communities.
3. With these directions, both writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
4. All connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Disclaimer:

For private circulation to the addressee only and not for re-circulation. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/ or publication of this Newsletter is strictly prohibited. This Newsletter is not intended to be an advertisement or solicitation. The contents of this Newsletter are solely meant to inform and are not a substitute for legal advice. Legal advice should be obtained based on the specific circumstances of each case, before relying on the contents of this Newsletter or prior to taking any decision based on the information contained in this Newsletter. ZEUS Law disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. If you have received this Newsletter in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.

Copyright © 2014 ZEUS Law. All rights reserved. Replication or redistribution of content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of ZEUS Law.