News X: National: Saturday, 14 November 2026.
A ramp at the entrance has
become the default proof that a bank branch is accessible. It is also,
increasingly, the wrong place to stop looking. Beyond that single ramp lie
teller counters designed for standing customers, biometric authentication that
assumes steady hands and clear vision, net banking portals that lack
screen-reader support, and KYC processes that quietly exclude anyone who cannot
complete them in the expected way. These gaps affect the everyday lives of
customers with disabilities and are increasingly being documented through a
Right to Information (RTI) campaign that has brought banking accessibility
concerns onto the institutional record.
The campaign is led by Dr. Arvinder Singh, a Udaipur-based physician, healthcare entrepreneur, and disability rights activist whose broader disability rights work has involved more than 700 RTI applications, including applications examining how banks implement accessibility requirements in practice. The campaign, run through Panacea Disability Rights Activists (PDRA), an initiative of the Panacea Educational Society, has resulted in documented institutional responses and accessibility-related interventions involving banks.
What the RTI responses actually show
Bank of India and RBL Bank have both been associated with accessibility-related interventions following concerns raised through the campaign. These responses indicate how documented accessibility concerns can lead to institutional action. The method behind these results is deliberately unglamorous. Rather than public campaigns or media pressure as a first move, Dr. Singh uses the RTI Act as a diagnostic instrument: a formal, documented inquiry that requires an institution to state, on record, what it has or has not implemented.
That distinction matters. A complaint can be dismissed. An RTI response becomes part of the institutional record, and a pattern of RTI responses across hundreds of branches becomes difficult to explain away as isolated oversights.
The findings from Udaipur offer specific examples. In its responses to RTI applications, Bank of India reported gaps in ramp access, wheelchair facilities, tactile paths, and accessible toilets across the five branches examined. The bank also stated that work on the ramps and wheelchair access had been initiated after the applications.
PNB’s responses offer another example of the difference between providing an individual accessibility facility and ensuring that a branch is fully accessible. The bank reported that all 51 branches under its Udaipur Mandal had ramps or wheelchair-accessible entrances, but none had been declared fully accessible. It also reported that an accessibility audit of branches in the district had not been conducted.
Why banking, and why now?
Bank branches sit at an unusual intersection: they provide essential public-facing services and are subject to applicable accessibility requirements, including standards specific to the banking sector. That dual status has historically made enforcement inconsistent. Audits may take place, but accountability for what those audits find has been harder to establish. Digital banking has compounded the problem. A net banking interface without screen-reader compatibility, or a KYC workflow that does not accommodate customers with different disabilities, can exclude a customer just as effectively as a missing ramp, while attracting far less scrutiny.
Dr. Singh’s campaign is still active, and not every bank has responded in the same way. PNB has provided RTI responses identifying accessibility gaps, while the matter involving HDFC Bank has progressed to a civil court summons concerning accessibility arrangements and access to banking services at a branch. These developments indicate that institutional responses and the pace of change can vary across banks.
A perspective shaped by more than advocacy
Dr. Singh’s perspective on accessibility is also shaped by his lived experience. He lives with a locomotor disability resulting from childhood polio, giving his work a first-person understanding of precisely where infrastructure fails. He has also spent more than two decades building and leading healthcare and diagnostics organizations, including senior roles at Dr. Lal PathLabs and Piramal Diagnostics. This experience gives him an understanding of institutional operations alongside his perspective as someone seeking accountability from outside these institutions.
His work brings together lived experience, institutional understanding, and the use of formal mechanisms such as the RTI Act to document accessibility gaps. An RTI campaign that documents specific accessibility concerns can give institutions a clearer basis for considering corrective measures, rather than relying solely on public criticism.
What it signals for the sector
The challenge ahead is whether acknowledgment at the institutional level translates into changes that customers actually experience: branches that are genuinely navigable, staff trained to assist customers rather than improvise, and digital banking tools built for more than one kind of user. Dr. Singh’s broader body of work extending to transport, public institutions, and policing suggests that banking is one front in a longer, methodical effort to make accessibility compliance something that can be verified, rather than merely claimed.
For the banking sector, the lesson from this campaign is that accessibility cannot be assessed through a checklist or the presence of a single facility. A sustained, well-documented RTI effort can achieve what years of general awareness messaging often cannot. It can put institutions on record, in their own words, admitting that the work is incomplete, and in doing so, it begins to close the gap between what accessibility policies promise and what customers actually encounter at bank branches.
 |
| Dr. Arvinder Singh |
The campaign is led by Dr. Arvinder Singh, a Udaipur-based physician, healthcare entrepreneur, and disability rights activist whose broader disability rights work has involved more than 700 RTI applications, including applications examining how banks implement accessibility requirements in practice. The campaign, run through Panacea Disability Rights Activists (PDRA), an initiative of the Panacea Educational Society, has resulted in documented institutional responses and accessibility-related interventions involving banks.
What the RTI responses actually show
Bank of India and RBL Bank have both been associated with accessibility-related interventions following concerns raised through the campaign. These responses indicate how documented accessibility concerns can lead to institutional action. The method behind these results is deliberately unglamorous. Rather than public campaigns or media pressure as a first move, Dr. Singh uses the RTI Act as a diagnostic instrument: a formal, documented inquiry that requires an institution to state, on record, what it has or has not implemented.
That distinction matters. A complaint can be dismissed. An RTI response becomes part of the institutional record, and a pattern of RTI responses across hundreds of branches becomes difficult to explain away as isolated oversights.
The findings from Udaipur offer specific examples. In its responses to RTI applications, Bank of India reported gaps in ramp access, wheelchair facilities, tactile paths, and accessible toilets across the five branches examined. The bank also stated that work on the ramps and wheelchair access had been initiated after the applications.
PNB’s responses offer another example of the difference between providing an individual accessibility facility and ensuring that a branch is fully accessible. The bank reported that all 51 branches under its Udaipur Mandal had ramps or wheelchair-accessible entrances, but none had been declared fully accessible. It also reported that an accessibility audit of branches in the district had not been conducted.
Why banking, and why now?
Bank branches sit at an unusual intersection: they provide essential public-facing services and are subject to applicable accessibility requirements, including standards specific to the banking sector. That dual status has historically made enforcement inconsistent. Audits may take place, but accountability for what those audits find has been harder to establish. Digital banking has compounded the problem. A net banking interface without screen-reader compatibility, or a KYC workflow that does not accommodate customers with different disabilities, can exclude a customer just as effectively as a missing ramp, while attracting far less scrutiny.
Dr. Singh’s campaign is still active, and not every bank has responded in the same way. PNB has provided RTI responses identifying accessibility gaps, while the matter involving HDFC Bank has progressed to a civil court summons concerning accessibility arrangements and access to banking services at a branch. These developments indicate that institutional responses and the pace of change can vary across banks.
A perspective shaped by more than advocacy
Dr. Singh’s perspective on accessibility is also shaped by his lived experience. He lives with a locomotor disability resulting from childhood polio, giving his work a first-person understanding of precisely where infrastructure fails. He has also spent more than two decades building and leading healthcare and diagnostics organizations, including senior roles at Dr. Lal PathLabs and Piramal Diagnostics. This experience gives him an understanding of institutional operations alongside his perspective as someone seeking accountability from outside these institutions.
His work brings together lived experience, institutional understanding, and the use of formal mechanisms such as the RTI Act to document accessibility gaps. An RTI campaign that documents specific accessibility concerns can give institutions a clearer basis for considering corrective measures, rather than relying solely on public criticism.
What it signals for the sector
The challenge ahead is whether acknowledgment at the institutional level translates into changes that customers actually experience: branches that are genuinely navigable, staff trained to assist customers rather than improvise, and digital banking tools built for more than one kind of user. Dr. Singh’s broader body of work extending to transport, public institutions, and policing suggests that banking is one front in a longer, methodical effort to make accessibility compliance something that can be verified, rather than merely claimed.
For the banking sector, the lesson from this campaign is that accessibility cannot be assessed through a checklist or the presence of a single facility. A sustained, well-documented RTI effort can achieve what years of general awareness messaging often cannot. It can put institutions on record, in their own words, admitting that the work is incomplete, and in doing so, it begins to close the gap between what accessibility policies promise and what customers actually encounter at bank branches.
.JPG)
.JPG)
