SC issues landmark guidelines for disability representation in films
The judgment underscored the detrimental impact of stereotypes on discrimination and the enjoyment of fundamental rights
The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Monday, laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent stereotyping and discrimination of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in visual media, including films and documentaries, as it emphasised the importance of sensitive and accurate representation of PwDs in order for discourse to be inclusive rather than alienating.
“Stereotyping is an antithesis to dignity and non-discrimination,” held a bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, highlighting the judiciary’s evolving role in not only safeguarding individual rights, but also in addressing complex intersections of disability, gender and mental health, enriching the discourse on equality and ensuring that the fundamental rights of all individuals are upheld.
Also Read:NEET-UG 2024 retest not needed, would adversely impact honest candidates: Centre tells SC
The bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, added: “We must distinguish disabling humour that demeans and disparages persons with disability from disability humour, which challenges conventional wisdom about disability. While disability humour attempts to better understand and explain disability, disabling humour denigrates it... We take this opportunity to provide a framework of the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the visual media that aligns with the anti-discrimination and dignity affirming objectives of the Constitution as well as the rights of persons with disabilities.”
The judgment underscored the detrimental impact of stereotypes on discrimination and the enjoyment of fundamental rights.
“This Court is cognisant of the impact of stereotypes on discrimination and the enjoyment of fundamental rights. We have framed safeguards against stereotyping under the anti-discrimination code and Article 15, which protects the right to dignity and equality,” it said.
Stressing the need to view disability as a nuanced, individualised concept shaped by various factors, the bench rejected a “one-size-fits-all” approach. It acknowledged the importance of preventing stigmatisation and discrimination against individuals with disabilities, recognising the profound impact on their sense of identity and dignity.
The Supreme Court laid down several key guidelines for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, premising its ruling on the ideas that “the language of thought discourse ought to be inclusive rather than alienating” and that “representation of persons with disabilities must regard the objective social contexts of their representation instead of marginalising them”.
Terms that perpetuate negative stereotypes, such as “cripple” and “retard” must be avoided as they contribute to a negative self-image and discriminatory attitudes, it directed.
“Creators must strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to prevent misinformation and stereotypes. The misleading portrayal of what a condition entails may perpetuate misinformation about the condition and influence stereotypes about persons with such impairments, aggravating the disability,” said the bench.
It further held: “Visual media should strive to depict the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents, and contributions to society. They should neither be lampooned based on myths such as blind people bump into objects in their path, nor presented as ‘super-cripples’ with extraordinary abilities.”
The context, intention, and overall message of a film must be considered before judging its content, said the bench, adding disabling humor that demeans PwDs should be distinguished from humor that challenges conventional wisdom about disability.
“As long as the overall message of the film justifies the depiction of disparaging language being used against persons with disabilities, it cannot be subjected to restrictions beyond those placed in Article 19 (reasonable restrictions). However, language that disparages persons with disabilities, marginalise them further and supplements with disabling barriers in their social participation without the redeeming quality of the overall message of such portrayal, must be approached with caution. Such representation is problematic not because it offends subjective feelings, but rather because it impairs the objective society treatment of the affected groups by society,” the Court underscored.
“Decision-making bodies must bear in mind the value of participation. ‘Nothing about us without us’ principle is based on the promotion of participation of persons with disabilities and equalisation of opportunities. It must be put into practice in constituting such statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and Rules,” directed the bench further so as to ensure that PwDs have a voice in evaluating media content.
Engaging with disability advocacy groups can provide invaluable insights and ensure accurate and respectful portrayals, said the bench, adding that media creators should undergo training and sensitisation programs to understand the impact of their work on the dignity and rights of PwDs.
The petition in the matter was filed by Nipun Malhotra, a disability rights activist, who complained against movie “Aankh Micholi”, produced by Sony Pictures Films India, arguing that the film contained derogatory and discriminatory remarks towards PwDs.
Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose, representing Malhotra, highlighted specific instances in the film where people with speech disabilities were called “atki hui cassettes” (stuck cassettes) and a person with memory issues was referred to as “bhulakkad baap” (forgetful father).
