Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, in Rahul Bajaj v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (Del) 616), has taken a significant step towards strengthening digital accessibility rights by directing expeditious compliance with accessibility guidelines for OTT platforms, particularly the streaming service ZEE5. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice on a petition highlighting systemic barriers faced by persons with disabilities in accessing digital streaming content, and emphasised the obligation of private digital service providers to ensure inclusive access to their platforms.
The case arises in the context of rapidly expanding digital entertainment services in India, where OTT platforms have become primary sources of media consumption. However, this growth has also exposed a critical gap in accessibility for persons with visual, auditory, cognitive, and other disabilities. Despite constitutional guarantees of equality and statutory mandates under disability rights law, many digital platforms continue to lack adequate accessibility features such as screen-reader compatibility, closed captioning, audio descriptions, keyboard navigation support, and accessible user interfaces.
The petitioner, Advocate Rahul Bajaj, approached the Court seeking directions to make the ZEE5 platform fully accessible across all its interfaces, including mobile applications, web browsers, smart television applications, and desktop software. The petition also sought a comprehensive accessibility audit by a government-empanelled expert body to identify barriers affecting users with disabilities and to recommend corrective measures.
In addition, the petitioner requested that the platform’s developers, designers, and customer support personnel be provided mandatory sensitisation and training on accessibility standards. The plea was grounded in the principle that digital access is no longer a privilege but an essential component of the right to information, equality, and dignity under the Constitution of India.
The matter came before the Court at a preliminary stage, where the High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their counter affidavits. Simultaneously, the Court passed interim directions requiring immediate steps to ensure compliance with established accessibility standards, including those prescribed under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) framework.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Rahul Bajaj, argued that despite the increasing dependence on digital platforms for entertainment, information, and communication, persons with disabilities continue to face significant exclusion from mainstream OTT services. It was submitted that the ZEE5 platform, in its present form, suffers from multiple accessibility barriers that render it partially or wholly unusable for users with visual or auditory impairments.
It was contended that the absence of adequate accessibility features violates not only the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India but also the statutory framework governing the rights of persons with disabilities. The petitioner emphasised that digital accessibility is an essential extension of the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life and dignity under Article 21, which necessarily includes access to information and entertainment.
The petitioner further submitted that international accessibility standards and Indian regulatory frameworks, including BIS Standard IS 17802:2022 (Part 1 and Part 2), clearly set out requirements for ensuring that information and communication technology products are accessible to all users. However, compliance with these standards by OTT platforms remains inconsistent and largely voluntary in practice.
It was also argued that without a structured accessibility audit conducted by an independent, government-empanelled agency, it is impossible to accurately assess the extent of barriers existing within the platform. The petitioner therefore sought a court-monitored mechanism to ensure that technical compliance is not merely cosmetic but substantively effective.
Additionally, the petitioner highlighted the need for systemic reform through mandatory training of platform personnel, including developers, designers, and customer support teams, to ensure that accessibility considerations are integrated into the design and maintenance of digital platforms from the outset rather than as an afterthought.
On the other hand, the respondents, including Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, were represented through counsel who sought time to file a detailed response. While no detailed opposition was recorded at this preliminary stage, the respondents did not dispute the applicability of accessibility norms in principle. Instead, the matter primarily revolved around the timeline and manner of implementation of such standards.
The respondents were effectively required to address whether the platform already complied with applicable BIS accessibility standards and, if not, what steps were being undertaken to achieve compliance. The Court also required clarification on the feasibility and timeline for implementing accessibility upgrades across multiple digital interfaces, including mobile applications, web platforms, smart TV applications, and desktop software.
Thus, while the petitioner’s case was grounded in enforceable rights of persons with disabilities and constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, the respondents were given an opportunity to present their compliance framework and technical limitations, if any, through their counter affidavit.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, after hearing the preliminary submissions, issued notice on the petition and granted the respondents two weeks’ time to file their counter affidavit. However, recognising the urgency of the issue and the continuing digital exclusion faced by persons with disabilities, the Court simultaneously issued interim directions requiring immediate steps towards compliance with accessibility standards.
The Court directed Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited to ensure that its platform is made compliant with relevant accessibility guidelines, specifically referring to the Bureau of Indian Standards framework, including IS 17802:2022 (Part 1: Requirements and Part 2: Conformance) relating to accessibility for information and communication technology products and services.
The Court observed that digital platforms today play a central role in public life, and access to such platforms cannot be restricted in a manner that excludes persons with disabilities. It emphasised that accessibility is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental aspect of equal participation in digital society. The Court’s direction reflects a broader judicial recognition that technological advancement must be accompanied by inclusive design principles to ensure that no section of society is left behind.
While the Court did not delve into a final adjudication on the merits of the petition, it clearly acknowledged the importance of ensuring that OTT platforms comply with statutory and regulatory accessibility norms. The direction to undertake “expeditious steps” indicates the Court’s expectation that compliance should not be deferred and must be treated as an immediate obligation.
The Court also directed that steps be taken promptly by the concerned respondents to ensure effective implementation of the order. This reflects a proactive judicial approach aimed at bridging the gap between regulatory standards and actual implementation in the digital ecosystem.
By issuing notice and simultaneously directing interim compliance measures, the Court balanced procedural fairness with substantive urgency. The respondents were given an opportunity to present their case while being required to initiate compliance measures without delay. The matter was listed for further hearing on September 17.
The judgment is significant as it reinforces the principle that digital accessibility forms an integral part of constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. It also signals judicial willingness to intervene in ensuring that private digital platforms adhere to accessibility standards, particularly where systemic exclusion of persons with disabilities is demonstrated.
The Court’s reliance on BIS accessibility standards highlights the growing importance of technical regulations in shaping legal obligations of digital service providers. Although the final determination of liability and compliance is yet to be made, the interim directions clearly set the tone for stricter enforcement of accessibility norms in India’s rapidly expanding OTT sector.
Ultimately, the decision underscores that technological innovation must be inclusive by design and that digital platforms, especially those serving large consumer bases, carry a responsibility to ensure universal access. The case thus marks an important step in the evolution of digital rights jurisprudence in India, particularly in relation to persons with disabilities.