Digital Platform's accessibility and risky workaround- what you need to know

Image by vectorjuice on Freepik

SEBI recently has mandated the accessibility audit of digital platforms of registered intermediaries.

There are few IAAP auditors available to do the audit and hence the cost of audit including remediation is very high. This makes the situation worse for Individual research analyst and Investment advisers.

As they say, every tight or tough regulation generally leads to cheaper workaround. Same is the current situation where many workarounds are being proposed like - making one pager website, separating blog and content website etc etc.

Do these workaround really legit or will they create problems for intermediaries ? We explore this question in light of regulatory backdrop. Note, that this is not our recommendation in any which ways, but a straightforward take on legality and how the regulator may see it.

Here we decode it step by step

SEBI Circular dated July 31, 2025, mandates that all investor-facing digital platforms of RAs must adhere to WCAG 2.1 AA standards, IS 17802:2021, and the RPwD Act, requiring periodic audits by certified professionals. This applies to all platforms used for investor communication, not just a minimal website.

Substance Over Form Principle : SEBI emphasizes that compliance is assessed based on the substance of accessibility and disclosure, not merely the form or number of web pages. Creating a minimal, compliant single-page website for disclosures while hosting additional content on a separate non-compliant site risks non-compliance, as all investor-facing platforms are considered part of the overall digital ecosystem

Legal and Regulatory Risks of Structuring : Structuring a minimal compliant website to meet regulatory requirements while hosting substantive content elsewhere may be viewed by SEBI as an evasive tactic, potentially violating the principle of holistic compliance. Such structuring could lead to enforcement actions, penalties, or sanctions under the SEBI Act, especially if perceived as circumventing the intent of accessibility and disclosure mandates. Enforcement and Penalties: SEBI’s enforcement mechanisms include adjudication, penalties, and suspension of registration for non-compliance. The regulations do not explicitly specify a substance-over-form clause but are rooted in the broader constitutional principles of transparency and accessibility under Article 21, reinforced by Supreme Court rulings affirming digital accessibility as a fundamental right.

Implications for Practice: SEBI requires compliance for "each investor-facing digital platform," implying all sites used for RA services; splitting content risks reclassification as a single ecosystem. RAs should ensure that their entire investor-facing digital presence is compliant, rather than segregating content to evade audits. This approach aligns with SEBI’s intent to protect investor rights and uphold transparency, minimizing regulatory risks and potential penalties. Minimal sites may pass initial audits but fail if SEBI deems them evasive; costs are per platform, but non-compliance exposes to SCORES complaints and remediation orders.