"Terms Such As Afflicted, Suffering & Victim Should Be Avoided": Apex Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines For Portraying Persons With Disabilities In Visual Media

The Supreme Court has laid down comprehensive guidelines for portraying persons with disabilities (PwDs) in visual media.

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said, "This court is cognizant of the fact of stereotypes on the discrimination and enjoyment of the fundamental rights."

"...Historical use of humour to mock disability, make joke at the persons with disabilities, and to use them for comic relief. Also the medical model keeps disability of the person tragedy which is why definition is incompatible with humour. This understanding is now obsolete under the social model, which views disability as a function of social barrier. The social model, says that stereotypes stems from a lack of familiarity with disability, this lack arises due to inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in dominant discourse," the Court observed. 

The Bench said, "We must therefore, distinguish disabling humour that demeans and disparage persons with disability from disability humour, which challenged conventional wisdom about disability, while disability humour attempts to understand and explain disability, disabling humour denigrates it."

Highlighting that the issue involves the fundamental rights of person with disabilities, the Bench said, "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 Act."

The comprehensive guidelines for portraying the PWD on visual media are as follows:

1. Words cultivate institutional discrimination, terms such as crippled and spastic have come to acquire negative meaning in society. They contribute to the negative self image and perpetuate discriminatory attitude and practices in society.  

2. Language that individualises the impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers for example, terms such a afflicted, suffering and victim should be avoided. 

3. Creators must check for accurate representation of a medical condition as much as possible. The misleading potrayal for conditions such as night blindness may perpetuate misinformation and may increase stereotype of such impairment. 

4. Persons with disabilities are under-represented. Average people are unaware of the barriers persons with disabilities face. Visual media must reflect their lived experiences. Their portrayal must capture the multitudes of their lived realities, and should not be a uni-dimensional, ableist characterisation

5. Visual media should strive to the diverse realities of the persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenged but also their successes, talents and contributions to society. 

6. They should neither be lampooned based on myths such as blind people bump into objects in their paths.

7. Decision making bodies should bare in mind the values of participation and nothing about us principal shall be followed. 

8. The convention of rights of the persons with disabilities, also requires consultation with and involvement of persons with disability in the implementation of measures, encourage potrayal that is with lived experiences. 

9. Training and sensitization programs should be implemented for individuals involved in creating visual media content, including writers, directors, producers, and actors. These programs should emphasize the impact of their portrayals 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. 

The petitioner in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) had sought framing of guidelines and inclusion of recommendations for theatres to follow while dealing with sensitive subjects such as Rights of persons with Disabilities in the visual media. 

Earlier, the Court had opined on the impact of Sections 3 and 6 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act) on the statutory power to certify films. The guidelines for film certification stipulate that scenes showing abuse or ridicule of physically and mentally handicapped persons should not be presented needlessly. Given the Union Government's role in interpreting these provisions, the Court had issued a notice to the Union Government.

The petitioner had previously filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court, challenging the ‘U’ certification granted to the film ‘Aankh Micholi’ by the Central Board of Film Certification. The petitioner had argued that the film and its trailer contained deprecatory references to differently-abled individuals. However, the petitioner had clarified during the hearing that there was no intent to challenge the certification or impede the film's exhibition and screening.

The film’s producers contended that the film aimed to highlight the challenges faced by differently-abled persons in a dignified manner, rather than to ridicule them. The Supreme Court had noted the relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which involve the constitution of Advisory Panels to assess the public impact of films and to make recommendations to the Board.

Cause Title: Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 465]

Click here to read/download the Judgment