Accessibility standards in government websites are a matter of rights, not just design. Critically comment in the Indian context.

Section 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 requires the government to make electronic content accessible [1]. As welfare delivery moves online, an inaccessible website shuts people out of their entitlements, not just a website. Law and the courts now treat accessibility as a right, but in practice it is still often handled as a design choice.

Accessibility as a right

• Statutory mandate: Section 40 requires binding accessibility standards for information and communication technology. The Act gives effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) [1].
• Constitutional backing: In Pragya Prasun v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court read digital access into Article 21. It held that an inaccessible e-KYC process amounts to exclusion and discrimination [3].
• Access to welfare: Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) runs through portals. The upgraded Agri Welfare Portal (Oct 2026) follows GIGW 3.0, offers screen-reader support and simple navigation, and is backed by training through Krishi Vigyan Kendras [4].
• Built into procurement: MeitY/NeGD procurement now pairs GIGW 3.0 with WCAG 2.1 AA and the DPDP Act, 2023 [6].

Why it is still treated as a design issue

• Soft standards: In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court found the RPwD Rules' accessibility provisions were only persuasive guidelines. It directed the government to frame mandatory, non-negotiable standards [2].
• Box-ticking compliance: Conformity is self-declared and penalties are rarely used. Many State and local portals still post scanned PDFs and offer English-only interfaces.
• Narrow framing: Accessibility is often read as being only about disability. It overlooks elderly, low-literacy and non-English users. 86.3% of households have internet at home [5], but that does not show that each individual can use a form on their own.
• Intermediaries return: Farmers who cannot use a portal turn to cyber-cafés and agents. This brings back the dependence that DBT was meant to end and exposes personal data protected under the DPDP Act [6].

The law therefore treats accessibility as a right, but administration still treats it as an optional design feature. To close the gap, the government should notify enforceable standards as the Raturi judgment requires, run independent audits with published scores, design for many languages, and keep assisted channels available. This would put Article 21, the UNCRPD and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) into practice, so that Digital India includes every citizen.