Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, affirms that citizens have a right not only to express themselves, but also to receive information. However, when entire communities are systematically excluded from public communication, this right becomes theoretical.
That foundational truth was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Pragya Prasun and Others v. Union of India and Others, decided on April 30. The Court directed all public and private regulated entities to ensure inclusive digital Know Your Customer (KYC) systems that accommodate persons with disabilities, including acid attack survivors and the visually impaired. Citing Articles 14, 15, 21, and 38 of the Constitution, the Court held that inclusive digital infrastructure is not merely a policy goal; it is a constitutional obligation essential for securing dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life.
In detailed and forward-looking directions, the Court mandated the inclusion of sign language interpretation, closed captions and alternative formats like Braille and audio-based services in digital interfaces. It also instructed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to ensure that digital KYC processes no longer rely on outdated methods like mandatory blinking and instead adopt inclusive authentication modes. These are not just compliance points, but represent a constitutional shift towards deeper accessibility and accountability.
Yet even as we make progress in the digital public sphere, a critical institutional space remains untouched by this spirit of inclusion: Parliament itself. Despite live telecasts of proceedings and speeches by key constitutional figures, there remains no provision for Indian Sign Language (ISL) interpretation. According to the Census 2011, a total of 2.68 crore persons in India were reported as having disabilities, out of which 19% having hearing disabilities are effectively barred from understanding or engaging with the country's most important democratic conversations.
This exclusion directly undermines the very essence of representative democracy. The ability to access and understand what happens in Parliament is not a luxury. It is foundational to political participation. Parliament is where national priorities are debated, rights are shaped and future policies are forged. Denying citizens the means to comprehend these discussions is both unjust and unconstitutional.
India already has the institutional capacity to address this gap. ISL was recognised as a language by the Government of India in 2020. The Indian Sign Language Research and Training Centre has developed over ten thousand standardised signs, and interpreter training programmes are underway. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, under Section 42, mandates that governments ensure access to content across all media platforms for persons with disabilities. Section 46 further makes it obligatory for all government websites to meet accessibility standards.
At the international level, India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified in 2007. Article 21 of the Convention explicitly calls on states to facilitate access to information in forms such as sign languages, Braille and other accessible formats.
Adding further weight to the issue, a recent study by the University of Cambridge in 2025 strongly recommended that ISL be given the status of an official language. The study highlighted that nearly one in five deaf or hard-of-hearing children in India were out of school as of 2014. It criticised the widespread use of oralism, an approach that focuses on lip-reading and speech at the cost of sign language, which has long been rejected globally. The report urged the government to constitutionally recognise ISL, treat its users as a linguistic minority and drastically increase interpreter training and education access. Its findings make it clear that the marginalisation of ISL is not limited to education, but extends to governance, media and public life.
Countries like New Zealand and Kenya provide instructive examples. The New Zealand Sign Language Act, 2006, granted legal status to sign language and mandated its use in parliamentary and emergency communication. Kenya, through Article 54 of its 2010 Constitution and the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2003, ensures the use of sign language in government services and public broadcasting. These are not symbolic gestures; they are constitutional commitments to participation.
The Indian Parliament already facilitates interpretation in over twenty Indian languages. Broadcasters like Sansad TV and Doordarshan possess the technical capacity to carry sign language interpretation feeds. Integrating ISL interpretation into parliamentary broadcasts is not a matter of feasibility. It is a question of will.
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Pragya Prasun establishes a constitutional standard for accessibility. If acid attack survivors and the visually impaired must be accommodated in digital financial processes, then surely the deaf community deserves no less in the country’s highest legislative forum. A simple amendment to the Rules of Procedure in Parliament, or a standalone law mandating real-time ISL interpretation during live sessions and major constitutional addresses, would mark a transformative shift.
No democracy can claim legitimacy if its processes are inaccessible to those it governs. The right to know is meaningless without the right to understand. Parliament must not remain silent to those who cannot hear. It must speak in ways all citizens can comprehend.
Shubham Airi is an advocate practicing before the High Court of Delhi and a former LAMP Fellow.