SEBI Accessibility Audit Process:
IAAP-Led, Defensible & Submission-Ready

SEBI accessibility audits demand methodological rigor that extends beyond standard WCAG evaluation. Regulatory compliance requires audits that withstand scrutiny from SEBI inspectors, legal authorities, and accessibility advocates. This necessitates documented testing protocols, assistive technology validation, and traceability between identified barriers and specific WCAG success criteria.

Generic accessibility audits often rely heavily on automated scanning tools, produce findings without regulatory context, and lack the documentation standards required for SEBI submission. A SEBI-aligned accessibility audit process integrates Indian accessibility standards (IS 17802:2021, GIGW 3.0), employs IAAP-certified auditors trained in regulatory evaluation, and produces compliance-ready documentation that maps findings to both international and domestic accessibility frameworks.

The difference between a checklist-based audit and a SEBI-grade audit lies in verification depth, assistive technology testing, audit governance, and documentation defensibility. Organizations subject to SEBI oversight require audit processes designed for regulatory validation, not merely technical assessment.

More about SEBI digital accessibility audit

Principles Governing a SEBI-Grade Accessibility Audit

SEBI accessibility audit processes are governed by principles that ensure regulatory credibility, technical accuracy, and documentation integrity.

Independence and Objectivity

Audit independence is fundamental to regulatory credibility. Auditors must evaluate digital platforms objectively, without influence from development teams, project timelines, or commercial pressures. IAAP-certified auditors adhere to professional codes of conduct that require impartial evaluation and accurate reporting of accessibility barriers regardless of remediation complexity or organizational preferences.

Independence also requires separation between audit and remediation functions. Organizations that conduct their own accessibility testing without independent verification face scrutiny regarding objectivity and thoroughness. Third-party audits by credentialed professionals provide the evidentiary foundation necessary for regulatory defense.

Standards Alignment

SEBI accessibility audits align with multiple overlapping standards: WCAG 2.1 Level AA, WCAG 2.2 where applicable, IS 17802:2021, GIGW 3.0 principles, and requirements under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Auditors must understand the interrelationship between these frameworks and evaluate digital platforms against the most stringent applicable requirements.

Standards alignment requires that audit findings reference specific WCAG success criteria, explain conformance requirements in the Indian regulatory context, and map issues to IS 17802:2021 provisions where relevant. This multi-standard approach ensures audit reports support both SEBI compliance and broader legal defensibility.

Manual Verification Over Tool Reliance

Automated accessibility scanning tools detect only a fraction of WCAG violations—typically 25 to 40 percent of issues that impact users with disabilities. SEBI-grade audits require manual verification across all WCAG success criteria, including those that cannot be evaluated algorithmically: keyboard navigation logic, focus management, form label association, heading hierarchy semantic correctness, alternative text accuracy, and cognitive accessibility.

Manual verification also includes testing with assistive technologies used by persons with disabilities in India, including JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, TalkBack, and ZoomText. This real-world validation identifies usability barriers that automated tools cannot detect.

Audit Traceability and Documentation

Every audit finding must be traceable to specific page elements, WCAG success criteria, and user impact scenarios. Traceability enables remediation teams to locate and fix issues systematically and allows regulatory authorities to verify that identified barriers have been addressed.

Documentation standards include screenshots or recordings demonstrating non-conformance, code-level identification of problematic elements, step-by-step reproduction procedures, and clear remediation guidance aligned with WCAG techniques. This documentation forms the evidentiary basis for SEBI compliance claims.

Why IAAP Certification Matters

End-to-End SEBI Accessibility Audit Lifecycle

A SEBI-aligned accessibility audit follows a structured lifecycle that ensures comprehensive evaluation, regulatory alignment, and defensible outcomes.

Pre-Audit Scoping and Platform Identification

The audit begins with systematic identification of all digital assets subject to SEBI accessibility requirements. This includes public websites, authenticated investor portals, mobile applications (iOS and Android), trading platforms, digital documents (PDFs, Excel, PowerPoint), multimedia content, and third-party integrations embedded in regulated platforms. Scoping also involves identifying user journeys critical to investor participation: account opening, KYC submission, trade execution, portfolio review, document access, complaint submission, and shareholder engagement. These journeys define the audit's functional coverage. Technical scoping includes identifying content management systems, front-end frameworks, JavaScript libraries, authentication mechanisms, and assistive technology compatibility requirements. This technical inventory informs testing protocols and tool selection.

Accessibility Discovery and Barrier Identification

Discovery involves systematic evaluation of digital platforms to identify accessibility barriers. Auditors use a combination of automated scanning tools (for initial issue detection), manual code inspection (for semantic HTML validation), keyboard navigation testing (for operability assessment), and visual inspection (for color contrast and layout issues). Barrier identification is conducted against the full set of WCAG 2.1 Level A and Level AA success criteria—50 criteria in total. Each criterion is evaluated in context, considering how it applies to specific interface elements, content types, and user interactions present on the platform. Discovery also includes reviewing accessibility documentation already published by the organization, including accessibility statements, known issue logs, and prior remediation efforts. This context informs the audit scope and identifies areas requiring enhanced scrutiny.

WCAG 2.1 / 2.2 AA Evaluation and Mapping

Each identified accessibility barrier is mapped to the specific WCAG success criterion it violates. This mapping includes the criterion number, conformance level (A or AA), brief description of the requirement, and explanation of how the platform fails to meet the criterion. For organizations adopting WCAG 2.2, additional success criteria addressing focus appearance, dragging movements, target size, and accessible authentication are evaluated where relevant to platform functionality. IS 17802:2021 harmonizes with WCAG 2.1 while incorporating India-specific implementation guidance. Audit findings are cross-referenced with IS 17802:2021 provisions to ensure alignment with the national accessibility standard. This mapping is essential when audit reports are reviewed by Indian regulatory authorities or referenced in legal proceedings under the RPwD Act. GIGW 3.0 provides additional accessibility guidance for digital platforms in India, including document accessibility requirements, form design principles, and multimedia accessibility. Audit findings related to PDF accessibility, form controls, and video content are mapped to relevant GIGW 3.0 provisions to demonstrate comprehensive standards alignment.

Issue Classification and Severity Assessment

Each identified accessibility barrier is classified by severity based on user impact, regulatory risk, and WCAG conformance level. Classification typically includes: Critical: Barriers that completely prevent access to essential functionality for users with disabilities, violate Level A success criteria, or create legal exposure under the RPwD Act. High: Barriers that significantly impair usability, violate Level AA success criteria, or prevent completion of key user journeys without workarounds. Medium: Barriers that create usability friction or violate success criteria in limited contexts but do not prevent task completion. Low: Barriers that affect accessibility best practices but do not violate WCAG success criteria at the target conformance level. Severity assessment informs remediation prioritization and helps organizations allocate development resources to address the most impactful barriers first.

Manual vs Automated Testing: What SEBI-Grade Audits Require

Understanding the limitations of automated testing is essential to evaluating audit quality and regulatory defensibility.

What Automated Tools Can Detect

Automated accessibility scanners excel at detecting certain classes of violations: missing alternative text attributes, insufficient color contrast, missing form labels, invalid HTML, duplicate IDs, missing page titles, and missing language declarations. These violations can be identified algorithmically without human judgment.

Automated tools provide efficient initial detection and are valuable for continuous monitoring during development. However, they cannot evaluate semantic correctness, contextual appropriateness, or user experience with assistive technologies.

What Automated Tools Cannot Detect

The majority of accessibility barriers require human evaluation. Automated tools cannot assess whether alternative text accurately describes image content, whether heading hierarchy reflects content structure, whether form error messages are clear and actionable, whether keyboard focus order is logical, whether dynamic content updates are announced to screen readers, or whether cognitive accessibility principles are followed.

Tools cannot determine whether a button labeled "Click here" provides sufficient context, whether a PDF's reading order matches visual order, whether a video's captions are synchronized and accurate, or whether a complex data visualization conveys equivalent information to screen reader users. These evaluations require expert judgment informed by assistive technology testing.

Why Manual Verification Is Mandatory for SEBI Compliance

SEBI expects accessibility audits to reflect real-world usability for persons with disabilities. Automated tool reports alone do not demonstrate that platforms are genuinely accessible—only that certain technical violations have been detected.

Manual verification by IAAP-certified auditors provides the depth of evaluation necessary for regulatory credibility. Auditors test actual user journeys, validate that assistive technologies can access all functionality, assess cognitive accessibility, and provide contextualized recommendations that address user needs rather than merely technical criteria.

Regulatory authorities and legal proceedings require evidence of thorough evaluation. Automated tool reports cannot provide this evidence; comprehensive manual audits can.

Audit Governance, Validation, and Re-Testing

Audit governance ensures that accessibility evaluation remains objective, verifiable, and aligned with regulatory expectations throughout the compliance lifecycle.

Separation of Audit and Remediation Responsibilities

Best practice requires organizational separation between audit and remediation functions. When the same team conducts audits and implements fixes, objectivity is compromised and regulatory authorities may question audit independence.

Independent audit organizations evaluate platforms, document findings, and provide remediation guidance without implementing the fixes themselves. Development teams or specialized remediation providers address identified barriers based on audit recommendations. This separation ensures that validation testing conducted after remediation is genuinely independent.

Validation of Remediated Issues

After remediation, each previously identified barrier must be re-tested to confirm that the fix has been implemented correctly and has achieved WCAG conformance. Validation testing follows the same methodology as the original audit, including manual verification and assistive technology testing.

Validation also confirms that remediation efforts have not introduced new accessibility barriers—a common occurrence when fixes are implemented without comprehensive testing. This regression testing ensures that overall accessibility posture improves rather than shifting barriers from one area to another.

Re-Testing Across Platforms and Assistive Technologies

Accessibility fixes must be validated across browser-assistive technology combinations commonly used by persons with disabilities in India. This includes testing on Windows with JAWS and NVDA, macOS with VoiceOver, iOS with VoiceOver, and Android with TalkBack.

Cross-platform re-testing is particularly important for complex interactive components, dynamic content updates, and mobile applications where assistive technology behavior varies significantly across platforms. A component that functions correctly with NVDA on Firefox may fail with JAWS on Chrome or with VoiceOver on Safari.

Audit Outputs and Compliance-Ready Documentation

SEBI accessibility compliance requires documentation that can withstand regulatory scrutiny and support legal defensibility.

Audit Findings Report

The audit findings report is the primary compliance artifact. It documents all identified accessibility barriers, organizes them by severity and WCAG success criteria, provides reproduction steps for each issue, includes evidence (screenshots, code samples, screen reader recordings), and offers remediation guidance aligned with WCAG techniques. The report must be written for multiple audiences: compliance officers who need executive summaries and regulatory risk assessment, legal teams who require standards citations and conformance analysis, and technical teams who need actionable remediation instructions. This multi-layered documentation ensures the report serves both strategic and operational purposes.

WCAG and Indian Standards Mapping Matrix

A mapping matrix cross-references each identified barrier with the specific WCAG 2.1 success criterion violated, the corresponding IS 17802:2021 provision where applicable, and relevant GIGW 3.0 guidance. This matrix provides regulatory authorities with clear evidence that the audit has evaluated the platform against all applicable standards. The matrix also supports remediation tracking by providing a structured view of outstanding issues organized by standard, conformance level, and severity. Organizations can use this matrix to demonstrate progressive compliance improvements over time.

Issue Severity and Regulatory Impact Classification

Beyond technical severity, audit documentation must assess regulatory impact. Issues that prevent persons with disabilities from accessing essential investor services carry higher regulatory risk than issues affecting supplementary content. Classification considers whether barriers affect critical user journeys (account opening, trade execution, portfolio access), whether they violate Level A criteria (baseline accessibility), and whether they create exposure under the RPwD Act. This regulatory impact assessment helps compliance officers prioritize remediation from a risk management perspective.

Validation and Re-Testing Summary

After remediation, the validation summary documents which issues have been successfully resolved, which require further remediation, and whether any new issues have been introduced. This summary provides evidence of remediation quality and ongoing compliance commitment. The validation summary also includes a conformance assessment indicating the platform's overall WCAG conformance status post-remediation. Organizations cannot claim WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance unless all Level A and Level AA success criteria are met across all evaluated content and functionality.

Common Process Gaps in Non-SEBI-Aligned Accessibility Audits

Many organizations commission accessibility audits that lack the rigor necessary for SEBI compliance. Understanding common process gaps helps explain why SEBI-grade audits require enhanced methodology.

What Happens When Audits Rely Only on Automated Tools?

Automated-only audits miss the majority of accessibility barriers, particularly those affecting screen reader users, keyboard-only users, and users with cognitive disabilities. Organizations relying solely on automated scanning tools receive incomplete assessments that fail to identify critical usability barriers.

When SEBI or legal authorities review accessibility compliance, automated tool reports are insufficient evidence. Regulatory authorities expect comprehensive manual evaluation and real-world assistive technology testing. Automated-only audits create false confidence and expose organizations to regulatory risk.

Why Generic WCAG Audits Fail SEBI Scrutiny

Generic WCAG audits evaluate platforms against international standards but may not address India-specific requirements under IS 17802:2021, GIGW 3.0, or the RPwD Act. They may lack mapping to Indian standards, may not consider regulatory context relevant to SEBI-regulated entities, and may not produce documentation formatted for Indian regulatory submission.

SEBI expects audits to demonstrate alignment with Indian accessibility frameworks, not merely international standards. Generic audits that ignore IS 17802:2021 or fail to reference the RPwD Act lack the regulatory context necessary for SEBI compliance defense.

Why Developer Self-Assessment Cannot Replace Independent Audits

Development teams building digital platforms have inherent conflicts of interest when evaluating their own work. Self-assessment lacks the objectivity, specialized expertise, and regulatory credibility that independent audits provide. Developers trained in accessibility can conduct valuable internal testing, but this cannot substitute for third-party validation.

SEBI expects independent verification by qualified professionals. Developer self-assessment, while valuable for continuous improvement, does not meet regulatory standards for compliance documentation. Organizations must engage external auditors with recognized credentials to demonstrate compliance credibility.

Why Audit Findings Must Include Remediation Guidance

Audit reports that simply list violations without explaining how to fix them provide limited value. SEBI-grade audits include detailed remediation guidance that references WCAG techniques, provides code examples, explains assistive technology requirements, and prioritizes fixes based on user impact.

Remediation guidance bridges the gap between accessibility expertise and development implementation. Without clear guidance, development teams may implement incorrect fixes, introduce new barriers, or waste resources on ineffective solutions. Comprehensive remediation documentation accelerates compliance and improves fix quality.

See Real SEBI Audit Case Studies

How This Process Supports SEBI Compliance

A rigorous, IAAP-led accessibility audit process directly supports SEBI compliance by reducing regulatory risk, improving audit defensibility, and establishing a foundation for ongoing accessibility governance.

Regulatory risk reduction occurs because comprehensive audits identify barriers before SEBI inspections, complaints from investors with disabilities, or legal proceedings under the RPwD Act. Organizations that proactively address accessibility through independent audits demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts and reduce exposure to enforcement actions.

Audit defensibility is critical when organizations must provide evidence of accessibility compliance to regulatory authorities. SEBI-grade audits produce documentation that withstands scrutiny: detailed findings mapped to multiple standards, assistive technology testing evidence, independent third-party validation, and remediation tracking. This documentation quality is essential for regulatory submission and legal defense.

Ongoing compliance is supported through validation protocols, regression testing, and annual re-audit recommendations. Accessibility is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing governance responsibility. Organizations that establish rigorous audit processes can maintain compliance as platforms evolve, content changes, and new features are introduced.

Organizations seeking SEBI-aligned accessibility audit services can review comprehensive information about audit methodology, IAAP certification, and compliance deliverables on our SEBI Digital Accessibility Audit page.

FAQs

Everything you need to know about SEBI Accessibility Audit Process.

Engaging in a SEBI-Aligned Accessibility Audit

Organizations subject to SEBI digital accessibility requirements should engage independent audit providers with demonstrated expertise in Indian regulatory compliance, IAAP-certified auditors, and comprehensive assistive technology testing capabilities.

The audit engagement process typically begins with platform scoping, timeline establishment, and documentation requirements review. Organizations should prepare platform access credentials, identify key user journeys, and designate internal stakeholders responsible for coordinating audit activities and receiving findings.

Comprehensive information about SEBI accessibility audit methodology, IAAP auditor qualifications, deliverables, and engagement processes is available on our SEBI Digital Accessibility Audit page.

Contact Us

Reach out to learn more about Flexxited, on your terms:

Phone number:

+91 9008358030

Email address:

sales@flexxited.com

India

Canada

Tell us a bit about you

Request SEBI Accessibility Assessment

Conducted by IAAP-certified accessibility auditors with full remediation support.

SEBI Accessibility Audit Process:IAAP-Led, Defensible & Submission-Ready