Apex Court’s Framework for Portrayal of Disability in Films

In a judgment dated July 8, 2024, the Supreme Court established a framework for the portrayal of individuals with disabilities in visual media, aligning with the anti-discrimination objectives of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).[1]

In this case, the appellant objected to the manner in which persons with disabilities were portrayed in the film, ‘Aankh Micholi’. Prior to its release, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent, Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited, concerning the film’s trailer. The respondent replied to this notice, and the film was released in November 2023, with a ‘U’ certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

After the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of maintainability, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, seeking the inclusion of an expert on disability in the CBFC and its advisory panel constituted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The appellant argued that the film infringed upon the rights of persons with disabilities and was in violation of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the RPwD Act. It was contended that the CBFC failed to fulfill its statutory duty to certify films according to the relevant guidelines.

The Supreme Court noted that the policy underlying the Act and its Rules already incorporate expert consultation. It clarified that it could not intervene simply because a different approach might be better, as the legality of the current policy was not in dispute. The Court also stated that it was “beyond the remit of constitutional courts to specify the qualifications or expertise that the constituents of these bodies must possess or to direct that such a requirement be legislatively included into the statute”.

The framework prescribed includes the following key points:

• Use inclusive language – Certain terms like “cripple” and “spastic” contribute to institutional discrimination and negative self-image among individuals with disabilities;
• Avoid individualising language – Language that individualises the impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers should be avoided. Eg. use of terms such as “afflicted”, “suffering”, and “victim”;
• Ensure accuracy in depicting medical conditions – Creators have to strive for accuracy in depicting medical conditions to prevent spread of misinformation and harmful stereotypes;
• Reflect diverse experiences of persons with disability – Barriers faced by persons with disabilities are often overlooked due to under-representation. Media should reflect their diverse experiences and portray the multitude of their lived realities;
• Ensure balanced representation – Visual media should show the full spectrum of the lives of individuals with disabilities, emphasising their contributions and roles in society to shift perceptions from limitations to potential;
• Avoid extremes – The extremes of reinforcing myths on one hand and the portrayal of individuals as “super cripples” on the other should be avoided. Such stereotypes can misrepresent the realities of disability;
• Prioritise inclusive decision-making – Decision-makers should prioritise the inclusion of persons with disabilities, embodying the principle of “nothing about us, without us”. This principle must be applied in constituting statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and the Rules;
• Engage in collaboration for accurate portrayal – Engaging with disability advocacy groups is essential for ensuring respectful and accurate portrayals that reflect real-life experiences; and
• Implement training programs – Training and sensitisation programs for individuals involved in creation of visual media content should focus on the social model of disability, respectful language, and accurate representation, fostering a deeper understanding of their impact on public perception.

[1] Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (CA No.7230 of 2024)