The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step towards promoting dignity and respect for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) by issuing guidelines to prevent their disparaging portrayal in films and other visual media.
This landmark decision was delivered in a plea filed by Nipun Malhotra (Appellant), who contested the insensitive depiction of differently abled individuals in the film 'Aankh Micholi' (Film), produced by Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (Respondent). This case marked a pivotal moment in addressing concerns over the representation and treatment of PwDs in films and other visual media. Further, this judgement provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the intersection of media representation and disability rights under the Indian legal context, particularly focusing on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). This analysis aims to highlight the key aspects of the judgement and its implications for media law.
The Petition & Its Implications
The case of Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. stems from a contentious dispute over copyright infringement and the portrayal of disability in media.
Nipun Malhotra, the Appellant and a disability rights activist, filed a lawsuit against Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. alleging that the Film violated the constitutional rights of disabled persons, provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 (superseded by the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition, 1991, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. It was also contended by the Appellant that there are instances in the trailer and the Film where certain medical conditions have been misrepresented and derogatory terms have been used for characters who are with disabilities. The Appellant argued that the depiction violated his rights under the Right to Privacy and Right to Dignity as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The Respondent contended that the introduction of the characters in the trailer is protected by the freedom of speech and expression; the Film does not pity or look down upon the characters but depicts their agency and skills; the depiction is neither derogatory nor stereotypical. The Respondent defended their portrayal, arguing that the character in question was a fictional creation and not intended to represent any real individual. The Respondent also argued that the film had undergone certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), which found no issues with its content.
The court's decision distinguishes between "Disability Humor," which questions traditional perceptions, and "Disabling Humour," which demeans individuals with disabilities. The guidelines are designed to prevent films from using offensive humour or stereotypes and instead encourage a nuanced and respectful portrayal of PwDs.
Supreme Court's Analysis & Judgement
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of balancing the right to freedom of expression with the right to dignity and non-discrimination. It emphasized that while creative expression is vital, it should not come at the cost of infringing upon the rights and dignity of marginalized communities.
The Supreme Court highlighted the detrimental impact of derogatory terms like "cripple" and "spastic" which have developed strong negative connotations, leading to societal discrimination against PwDs. These terms not only undermine the dignity of individuals but also reinforce damaging stereotypes. The Apex Court emphasized the importance of visual media in portraying the varied experiences of individuals with disabilities. Highlighting their obstacles, achievements, skills, and positive contributions to society, the Court underscored the responsibility of filmmakers and creators of visual content to strive for precise portrayals of medical conditions. This accuracy is crucial to prevent the perpetuation of misinformation and harmful stereotypes.
Citing Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the significance of films portraying the varied realities of PwDs. He stated, "Stereotyping is contrary to the principles of dignity and non-discrimination". The Court recognized the past use of humor that mocks disability, frequently casting PwDs as characters solely for comic purposes. Nevertheless, the Court contends that such representations overlook the real-life experiences and valuable contributions of PwDs in society.
While the Court acknowledged the role of CBFC in certifying films, it also stated that such certification does not absolve filmmakers from adhering to constitutional and statutory obligations.
The Court emphasized that the CBFC certification should not be viewed as a blanket approval for all content, especially content that could harm societal interests or individual rights.
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, ruled in favor of Nipun Malhotra. The Court ordered an immediate injunction on the screening of the film in its current form, directing the respondents to make necessary changes to the portrayal of the character with a disability.
Guidelines For Future Representations
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for filmmakers regarding the depiction of individuals with disabilities, emphasizing the need for sensitivity and respect. The Supreme Court's seven-point guidelines for filmmakers and visual media creators are designed to foster inclusive and respectful portrayals of PwDs:
Avoid Derogatory Terms: Filmmakers should refrain from using language that contributes to institutional discrimination, such as "crippled," which can negatively impact self-image and societal attitudes.
Reflect Social Barriers: Language in films should accurately reflect the social barriers faced by individuals with disabilities, emphasizing the challenges they encounter due to societal attitudes rather than their impairments.
Verify Medical Information: Filmmakers should ensure that medical conditions are accurately represented, avoiding misinformation that could lead to further discrimination.
Steer Clear of Myths & Stereotypes: Films should avoid perpetuating myths, such as the notion that all individuals with impairments have enhanced sensory abilities. This reinforces inaccurate and harmful stereotypes.
Nothing About Us Without Us: The principle of ensuring uniform participation of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in the creative process should be adhered to, promoting authentic and informed portrayals.
Consult Disability Advocacy Groups: Engaging with disability rights advocacy groups can provide valuable insights for accurate character portrayal, ensuring sensitivity and respect.
Training & Sensitization Programs: Creators should undergo training and sensitization programs to better understand the lived experiences of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), fostering empathy and inclusivity in their work.
Broader Impact & Future Directions
The Supreme Court's decision on respectful portrayals of PwDs in films transcends cinematic guidelines. It marks a significant step towards a more inclusive society, aligning with global movements advocating for marginalized communities. By mandating accurate and respectful depictions, the court aims to dismantle stereotypes and foster a more equitable environment.
Chief Justice Chandrachud underscored the power of cinema in shaping public perception. He stressed that films must depict the reality of disabled persons' lives, as resorting to stereotypes belittles the diverse experiences of these individuals. Stereotyping is an antithesis of dignity and anti-discrimination principles under Article 14.
Historically, humour has often relied on mocking disability, perpetuating negative stereotypes and reinforcing societal discrimination. The Chief Justice lamented this trend, noting that using PwDs for comic relief is outdated in the current social model. The lack of familiarity and understanding of PwD experiences stems from their inadequate representation in mainstream media. The bench emphasized that genuine representation goes beyond mere casting choices. It involves engaging with PwDs, consulting experts, and portraying characters with nuance and depth. This approach aims to cultivate empathy and understanding among audiences, fostering inclusivity and respect.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's guidelines mark a significant shift in how individuals with disabilities are portrayed in the media. These guidelines promote accurate, respectful, and dignified representations to foster inclusivity. The ruling protects the constitutional rights of PwDs and aligns with global standards set by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In the digital media era, visual content greatly shapes public perception. These guidelines serve as a vital reminder of creators' responsibility in shaping a more inclusive and fair world.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.