Delhi HC Issues Notice to Zee Entertainment Over ZEE5 Platform's Accessibility Failures for Persons with Disabilities
A writ petition before the Delhi High Court demands that ZEE5 comply with BIS Standard IS 17802 and be operable by screen-reader technology for disabled users.
The Delhi High Court, on 2 July 2026, issued notice to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited after a writ petition was filed alleging that its OTT platform, ZEE5, is inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, sitting singly, directed the respondents to take expeditious steps to make the ZEE5 platform compliant with the Bureau of Indian Standards specification IS 17802:2022 — the national standard governing accessibility for information and communications technology products and services. The court has also requested that ZEE5's counsel take concrete steps toward compliance even at this preliminary stage, with the matter listed for further hearing on 17 September 2026.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, Rahul Bajaj, filed W.P.(C) 8569/2026 seeking a range of directions against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Respondent No. 1) and two regulatory or government respondents (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). The petition relates to the ZEE5 platform, which operates across mobile applications on Android and iOS, its website, smart-television applications, and desktop software.
The petitioner contends that ZEE5 fails to meet its statutory accessibility obligations. Specifically, the platform is alleged to be non-compliant with Indian Standard IS 17802 and not independently operable through screen-reader assistive technology — a tool relied upon by visually impaired users to navigate digital interfaces.
Petitioner Rahul Bajaj was represented by Mr. Amritesh Mishra, Ms. Sarah, and Mr. Amar Jain. Mr. Neeraj Dubey, appearing as Senior Panel Counsel, accepted notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No appearance was entered on behalf of Zee Entertainment despite the company having received advance notice of the proceedings.
What the Petition Asks For
The prayers in the petition are specific. The petitioner asks the court to direct Zee Entertainment to commission a detailed accessibility audit of the ZEE5 platform, to be conducted by a government-empanelled accessibility auditor. The audit is to identify barriers faced by persons with disabilities across all of ZEE5's interfaces.
Beyond the audit, the petitioner seeks a time-bound schedule for the platform to be rendered fully compliant with IS 17802 and operable independently through screen-reader technology. The petition further asks that ZEE5 maintain this accessibility on a continuing basis throughout its operational life.
A separate direction is sought for ZEE5 to publish an Accessibility Conformance Report on its website and applications — in line with Clause 7 of Part 2 of IS 17802 — and to conduct mandatory sensitisation and training of its developers, designers, and customer-support teams.
In the alternative, if Zee Entertainment does not comply, the petition asks that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to enforce compliance and to take action under Sections 89 and 90 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Those provisions deal with penalties for contravention of provisions of that statute.
The Legal Framework Invoked
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is the central statute in issue. The petition invokes Sections 89 and 90 of that Act in the alternative prayer, which concerns enforcement action by the regulatory respondents for non-compliance with the statute's accessibility obligations.
IS 17802:2022, published by the Bureau of Indian Standards, is a two-part specification. Part 1 sets out requirements; Part 2 deals with conformance. The petition treats compliance with this standard as a statutory obligation rather than a voluntary measure, a framing the court appears to have taken seriously given its direction to counsel for Respondent No. 1 to take steps toward compliance even before the full hearing.
How the Bench Proceeded
Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice in the writ petition and directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner may file a rejoinder within two weeks of that filing.
Since Zee Entertainment had not appeared despite advance service, the court directed that notice be issued to it through all permissible modes — including electronically — on payment of process fee.
The court went a step further. Rather than leaving the matter to rest until the next date, the bench specifically requested that counsel for Respondent No. 1 “take steps to make the platform of the respondent compliant with the relevant guidelines,” referring to IS 17802:2022 (Part 1: Requirements and Part 2: Conformance). The court also directed that expeditious steps be taken by all respondents to ensure such compliance.
This direction at the notice stage, before any counter-affidavit has been filed, signals that the bench treated the accessibility obligation as one requiring immediate attention rather than deferred response.
Order
The High Court of Delhi issued notice to all respondents in W.P.(C) 8569/2026. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks, with rejoinder to follow within a further two weeks. Notice to Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited is to be served through all permissible modes, including electronic service. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has been requested to initiate steps toward compliance with IS 17802:2022. The matter is returnable on 17 September 2026.