New Delhi: Conservatism Persons with Disabilities In visual media and the movies live on Discrimination and inequality, Supreme Court On Monday, filmmakers were asked to avoid misleading portrayals of such persons and not to make fun of them. The apex court said that caution should be exercised in using language that insults persons with disabilities, further marginalises them and hinders their social participation.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said these words institutionalise discrimination and words like “crippled” and “disabled” have devalued the societal perception about persons with disabilities.
Outlining the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, the Supreme Court said they contribute to negative self-image and promote discriminatory attitudes and practices in society.
“Language that individualises disability and ignores the disabling social barriers (such as words such as “afflicted”, “sufferer” and “victim”) should be avoided or marked as contrary to social mores.
The bench, which also comprised Justice JB Pardiwala, said, “Creators should portray the medical condition as accurately as possible. Misleading portrayals of a condition like night blindness may lead to misinformation about the condition and spread stereotypes about persons with such disabilities, thereby aggravating disability.”
The apex court said that persons with disabilities are under-represented and the average person is unaware of the hurdles faced by persons with disabilities.
“Visual media must reflect their lived experiences. Their portrayal must include the multiplicity of their lived realities, and should not be a one-dimensional, ableist characterisation.
“Visual media should strive to reflect the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents and contributions to society. This balanced representation can help dispel stereotypes and promote a more inclusive understanding of disability,” the bench said.
It said such portrayals should reflect the multifaceted lives of persons with disabilities and emphasise their role as active community members who make meaningful contributions to various spheres of life.
“By highlighting their achievements and everyday experiences, the media can shift the story from limitations to possibilities and agency.
“Neither should they be ridiculed on the basis of myths (such as, ‘blind people bump into objects in their path’) nor, on the other hand, should they be presented as ‘super disabled’. This stereotype implies that persons with disabilities possess extraordinary heroic abilities which merit them to be treated with respect,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court said that decision-making bodies must keep in mind the values of participation.
The principle of “nothing about us, nothing without us” is based on promoting participation of persons with disabilities and equality of opportunities. This should be put into practice in the constitution of statutory committees and inviting expert opinions under the Cinematograph Act and Rules to assess the overall message of films and their impact on the dignity of persons…
“Collaboration with disability advocacy groups can provide invaluable insight and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring that content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities,” the bench said.
The apex court said that training and sensitisation programmes must be implemented for persons involved in creating visual media content, including writers, directors, producers and actors.
It said these programmes should emphasise the impact of their portrayal on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.
“Topics should include the principles of the social model of disability, the importance of respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation. Regular workshops and collaboration with disability advocacy groups can promote a deeper understanding and commitment to responsible portrayals,” the bench said.
The court said that the creative freedom of a filmmaker cannot include the freedom to ridicule, stereotype, misrepresent or insult already marginalised people.
“There is a difference between a film set against the backdrop of communal violence and a film that avoids depicting violence and a film that openly glorifies violence.
“Similarly, if the overall message of the work infringes on the rights of persons with disabilities, it is not protected speech, thereby eliminating the need for any balancing. However, in appropriate cases, if the stereotypical/derogatory portrayal is justified by the overall message of the film, the filmmaker’s right to retain such portrayal will have to be balanced against the fundamental and statutory rights of the persons depicted,” it said.
The decision came on a petition filed by Nipun Malhotra, who said that the Hindi film ‘Aankh Micholi’ contained derogatory references to disabled persons.
The Sony Pictures Films India project, written by Jitendra Parmar, revolves around a “mismatched family”.
The film stars Abhimanyu, Mrunal Thakur, Paresh Rawal, Sharman Joshi, Divya Dutta, Abhishek Banerjee, Darshan Jariwala, Grusha Kapoor and Vijay Raj.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said these words institutionalise discrimination and words like “crippled” and “disabled” have devalued the societal perception about persons with disabilities.
Outlining the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, the Supreme Court said they contribute to negative self-image and promote discriminatory attitudes and practices in society.
“Language that individualises disability and ignores the disabling social barriers (such as words such as “afflicted”, “sufferer” and “victim”) should be avoided or marked as contrary to social mores.
The bench, which also comprised Justice JB Pardiwala, said, “Creators should portray the medical condition as accurately as possible. Misleading portrayals of a condition like night blindness may lead to misinformation about the condition and spread stereotypes about persons with such disabilities, thereby aggravating disability.”
The apex court said that persons with disabilities are under-represented and the average person is unaware of the hurdles faced by persons with disabilities.
“Visual media must reflect their lived experiences. Their portrayal must include the multiplicity of their lived realities, and should not be a one-dimensional, ableist characterisation.
“Visual media should strive to reflect the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents and contributions to society. This balanced representation can help dispel stereotypes and promote a more inclusive understanding of disability,” the bench said.
It said such portrayals should reflect the multifaceted lives of persons with disabilities and emphasise their role as active community members who make meaningful contributions to various spheres of life.
“By highlighting their achievements and everyday experiences, the media can shift the story from limitations to possibilities and agency.
“Neither should they be ridiculed on the basis of myths (such as, ‘blind people bump into objects in their path’) nor, on the other hand, should they be presented as ‘super disabled’. This stereotype implies that persons with disabilities possess extraordinary heroic abilities which merit them to be treated with respect,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court said that decision-making bodies must keep in mind the values of participation.
The principle of “nothing about us, nothing without us” is based on promoting participation of persons with disabilities and equality of opportunities. This should be put into practice in the constitution of statutory committees and inviting expert opinions under the Cinematograph Act and Rules to assess the overall message of films and their impact on the dignity of persons…
“Collaboration with disability advocacy groups can provide invaluable insight and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals, ensuring that content aligns with the lived experiences of persons with disabilities,” the bench said.
The apex court said that training and sensitisation programmes must be implemented for persons involved in creating visual media content, including writers, directors, producers and actors.
It said these programmes should emphasise the impact of their portrayal on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities.
“Topics should include the principles of the social model of disability, the importance of respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation. Regular workshops and collaboration with disability advocacy groups can promote a deeper understanding and commitment to responsible portrayals,” the bench said.
The court said that the creative freedom of a filmmaker cannot include the freedom to ridicule, stereotype, misrepresent or insult already marginalised people.
“There is a difference between a film set against the backdrop of communal violence and a film that avoids depicting violence and a film that openly glorifies violence.
“Similarly, if the overall message of the work infringes on the rights of persons with disabilities, it is not protected speech, thereby eliminating the need for any balancing. However, in appropriate cases, if the stereotypical/derogatory portrayal is justified by the overall message of the film, the filmmaker’s right to retain such portrayal will have to be balanced against the fundamental and statutory rights of the persons depicted,” it said.
The decision came on a petition filed by Nipun Malhotra, who said that the Hindi film ‘Aankh Micholi’ contained derogatory references to disabled persons.
The Sony Pictures Films India project, written by Jitendra Parmar, revolves around a “mismatched family”.
The film stars Abhimanyu, Mrunal Thakur, Paresh Rawal, Sharman Joshi, Divya Dutta, Abhishek Banerjee, Darshan Jariwala, Grusha Kapoor and Vijay Raj.
