Sign Language.
Credit: iStock Photo
Almost a hundred years ago, T S Eliot famously asked, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” His words ring truer today, in an era where information itself is a form of influence and access.
The Constitution of India recognises this influence as a fundamental right. However, when entire communities are systemically 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, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2024, decided on April 30, 2025. 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. 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 It also instructed the Reserve Bank of India to ensure that digital KYC processes no longer rely on outdated methods like mandatory blinking and instead adopt inclusive authentication modes.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. Despite live telecasts of proceedings and speeches by key constitutional figures, there remains no provision for Indian Sign Language (ISL) interpretation. As a result, approximately 2.68 crore hearing-impaired citizens (Census 2011) are effectively barred from understanding or engaging with the country’s most important democratic conversations.
The ability to access and understand what happens in Parliament is not a luxury, but 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 ISL Research and Training Centre has developed over 10,000 standardised signs and interpreter training programmes are underway.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No. 49 of 2016), under Section 42, mandates that governments ensure access to content across media platforms for persons with disabilities. Section 46 further makes it obligatory for all government websites to meet accessibility standards.
Even in moments of national urgency, the community has been excluded. During the rising India-Pakistan tensions, none of the key updates, media briefings or Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address were made available in ISL.
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 state parties to facilitate access to information in forms such as sign languages, Braille, and other accessible formats. Adding weight to the issue, a study by the University of Cambridge in 2025 strongly recommended that ISL be given the status of an official language.
Question of intent
The Parliament already facilitates interpretation in over 20 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.
(The writer is an advocate in the High Court of Delhi)