New Delhi: A Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held on July 8 that stereotyping differently-abled persons in visual media and films perpetuate discrimination and creators ought to provide an accurate representation of disabilities rather than mocking or mythifying them.
The judgment, described as “path-breaking” by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on the Bench, denounced the use of words like ‘cripple’, ‘spastic’, etc, which stigmatise disabled persons.
The Supreme Court judgment came on a petition filed by activist Nipun Malhotra challenging the alleged insensitive portrayal of differently-abled individuals in the film ‘Aankh Micholi,’ produced by Sony Pictures.
The Court held that the legal framework stressed on the prevention of stigmatisation and discrimination, recognising their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. However, it said, the historically oppressive representation of differently-abled persons continues.
Persons with disabilities are used to provide comic relief. Jokes are made at their expense. There is a historical use of humour to mock disability, the Chief Justice, who authored the judgment, noted.
Chief Justice Chandrachud drew attention to how films and visual media tend to perpetuate myths about disabilities. The court noted how persons with certain disabilities are portrayed 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,” the Chief Justice highlighted.
The judgment highlighted how the modern social model treats disabilities quite differently from the medical model. The latter view disability as a personal tragedy. The court said the medical model has become obsolete. It embraced the social model’s view that stereotypes and mockery of disabilities comes from the “lack of familiarity” with a disability.
“This lack arises from inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in the dominant discourse,” the Chief Justice read out excerpts from the judgment.
The court also struck a balance by saying that not all speech that entrenches stereotypes was against individual dignity. One should consider the context, intention and overall meaning before arriving at a conclusion whether remarks made on visual media or films were disparaging.
To aid this endeavour, Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour’. The judgment said disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities while disability humour tries to better understand and explain a disability.
Issuing a series of guidelines creators of films and visual media content ought to hear in mind, the Supreme Court said their language of discourse should be inclusive rather than alienating.
“Insensitive language is contrary to the dignity of persons with disabilities… Language which disparages disabled persons, marginalises them further and supplements the disabling barriers to their social participation is problematic… Such language impairs the objective societal treatment of the affected group by the society,” Chief Justice Chandrachud explained.
The court discouraged the use of words like ‘cripple’, ‘spastic’ which devaluate meanings in societal perception of persons with disabilities. The court frowned upon terms like ‘afflicted’, ‘the suffering’ and ‘victim’.
“They contribute to the negative self-image,” Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out. The court said creators of films and visual media content must search for an accurate representation of a medical condition as much as possible. Misleading portrayals may perpetuate misinformation about a condition.
Further visual media ought to strive to depict the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents and contributions to society.
The court advised authorities to involve persons with disabilities as major stakeholders on statutory committees while taking decisions to protect their rights, especially under the Cinematograph Rules.
The court reminded the government that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities require authorities to take in the “lived experiences” of the group concerned.