Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hon'ble Justice JB Pardiwala
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024
@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5239 of 2024
Case Title: Nipun Malhotra (Appellant) Versus
Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors
Date of Judgement: 08 Jul 2024
Brief Introduction:
In a groundbreaking judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines aimed at ensuring the dignified portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. This significant ruling emphasizes the importance of respectful and accurate representation, underscoring that negative stereotypes and insensitive portrayals can severely impact the dignity of persons with disabilities and perpetuate social discrimination against them. The Supreme Court said “the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalised”. In determining these aspects, the “intention” and “overall message” of the film have to be considered.
The case in question involved the portrayal of disabled persons in the film 'Aankh Mihcoli,' produced by Sony Pictures. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing a petition challenging the film's portrayal of disabled persons. The petitioner sought guidelines for filmmakers regarding the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act and recommendations to censor certain parts of the film.
While the Court refused to interfere with the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), it took the opportunity to provide a framework for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media. The Court's guidelines aim to align such portrayals with the anti-discrimination and dignity-affirming objectives of the Indian Constitution and the RPwD Act.
Judgment Highlights:
The Court emphasized the prevention of stigmatization and discrimination, recognizing their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the historically oppressive representation of differently-abled persons continues, with persons with disabilities often used to provide comic relief and jokes made at their expense. He noted the historical use of humor to mock disability and how films and visual media tend to perpetuate myths about disabilities, portraying persons with certain disabilities as “super-cripples.”
“This stereotype implies that disabled persons have extraordinary heroic abilities like enhanced spatial sense… this may not apply to everyone. It also may imply that those who do not have such superpowers are less than normal or ideal,” Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked.
The judgment embraced the modern social model of disability, which views disabilities not as personal tragedies but as societal barriers to inclusion. The medical model, which sees disability as a personal tragedy, was deemed obsolete. The Court pointed out that stereotypes and mockery of disabilities arise from a “lack of familiarity” with disabilities, stemming from inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in the dominant discourse.
The Court balanced the issue by stating that not all speech that entrenches stereotypes was against individual dignity. Context, intention, and overall meaning must be considered before determining if remarks made in visual media or films are disparaging.
Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour,’ explaining that disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities while disability humour seeks to better understand and explain a disability.
Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:
1. Language Sensitivity: - Avoid words that cultivate institutional discrimination, such as “cripple” and “spastic,” as they contribute to negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. Avoid language that individualizes the impairment and overlooks social barriers (e.g., terms like “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victim”).
2. Accurate Representation:- Strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to avoid perpetuating misinformation and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.
3. Inclusive and Diverse Portrayals:- Reflect the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, capturing their diverse realities and avoiding one-dimensional, ableist characterizations. Showcase the successes, talents, and contributions of persons with disabilities, promoting a more inclusive understanding of disability.
4. Avoiding Harmful Stereotypes:- Do not lampoon persons with disabilities based on myths or present them as “super-cripples” with extraordinary abilities, implying they deserve dignity only if they compensate for their impairments in exceptional ways.
5. Participatory Decision-Making:- Practice the principle of “nothing about us, without us,” involving persons with disabilities in the creation and assessment of visual media content.
6. Collaboration and Consultation:- Collaborate with disability advocacy groups to gain invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.
7. Training and Sensitization:- Implement training programs for writers, directors, producers, and actors to emphasize the impact of portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities. These programs should cover the social model of disability, respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation.
Conclusion:
This landmark judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that visual media respects and upholds the dignity of persons with disabilities. By issuing these guidelines, the Supreme Court has paved the way for more inclusive and respectful portrayals, which can help shift societal perceptions and promote equality. The involvement of persons with disabilities in the creative process and collaboration with advocacy groups will ensure that media content reflects their lived experiences accurately and empathetically.
The Court's judgment in this case sets a precedent that can influence future portrayals of persons with disabilities in visual media, fostering a more inclusive and respectful society.
Read the Judgement:
