SC issues landmark guidelines for disability representation in films

One of the foundational pillars of an affirming attitude towards disability and neurodivergence is good media representation.

Until the depiction of disabled and neurodivergent people in our films, TV series and social media is accurate, respectful, and empathetic, not much in society's attitude towards this community can change. 

Looks like the Supreme Court has taken note. 

In a landmark ruling on July 8, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud established comprehensive guidelines to prevent stereotyping and discrimination of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in visual media, including films and documentaries. 

The petition, filed by disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra, was driven by concerns over derogatory and discriminatory remarks towards PwDs in the film ‘Aankh Micholi.' 

The film included terms like “atki hui cassettes” (stuck cassettes) and “bhulakkad baap” (forgetful father) to describe individuals with speech and memory disabilities.

‘Aankh Micholi,’ released in 2023 to largely unfavourable reviews, is a film about a family whose various members live with disabilities and health conditions, including deafness, stammering and night blindness. 

The plot is an ableist ‘comedy of errors’ that rests on using disability and neurodivergence as elements of comic relief. 

Unfortunately, what a lot of filmmakers fail to realise is not only is the disabled community a low hanging fruit for comedy and all other kinds of slapstick content that shows them in bad light for a cheap laugh, their improper representation gives rise to society's developing misgivings about the community’s actual potential. 

The Supreme Court rightly emphasised that creators must provide an accurate representation of disabilities rather than mocking or mythifying them. 

Justice JB Pardiwala, part of the bench, described the judgment as "path-breaking," denouncing the use of stigmatising terms like “cripple” and “spastic.” 

Historical context and the need for change

Indian films, TV serials, ads, and news media have long used disabilities and neurodivergent conditions as a source of comic relief, often at the expense of the dignity of persons with disabilities and neurodivergent conditions. 

Characters with disabilities have been frequently depicted in a manner that elicits pity or frames them as overtly inspirational, contributing to a skewed and harmful portrayal of disability. 

This stereotypical representation reinforces negative perceptions and stigmatisation, marginalising an already vulnerable group.

The Supreme Court's latest judgement

Chief Justice Chandrachud, authoring the judgement, drew attention to the harmful myths perpetuated by visual media about disabilities. 

The Court noted that depicting persons with disabilities as “super-cripples” implies that they must possess extraordinary abilities, thereby marginalising those who do not fit this stereotype. 

The bench stated, “Stereotyping is an antithesis to dignity and non-discrimination,” highlighting the judiciary’s evolving role in safeguarding individual rights and addressing complex intersections of disability, gender, and mental health.

Modern social model vs the medical model

The judgement emphasised a shift from the medical model, which views disability as a personal tragedy, to the modern social model. 

The social model treats disabilities as a result of societal barriers rather than individual deficits. 

Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted that stereotypes and a mockery of disabilities arise from a lack of familiarity and inadequate representation of persons with disabilities in mainstream discourse.

Distinguishing humour types and their impact

The Court made a critical distinction between “disabling humour” and “disability humour.” 

Disabling humour demeans persons with disabilities, while disability humour seeks to better understand and explain disability. 

The context, intention, and overall message of media content should be considered before concluding whether remarks are disparaging.

Guidelines for inclusive representation

The Supreme Court issued several guidelines for creators of films and visual media content:

• Language and terminology: Insensitive language is contrary to the dignity of persons with disabilities. Terms like “cripple” and “spastic” should be avoided, as should terms like “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victim.” These terms contribute to negative self-image and societal marginalisation. 

• Accurate representation: Creators must strive for accurate representation of medical conditions to prevent misinformation and perpetuation of stereotypes. Misleading portrayals can reinforce harmful misconceptions about disabilities. 

• Diverse realities: Visual media should depict the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents, and contributions to society. This holistic portrayal helps to normalise disability and reduce stigma.

• Stakeholder involvement: The bench emphasised the importance of disabled participation in the creation of media, stating, “‘Nothing about us without us’ principle is based on the promotion of participation of persons with disabilities and equalisation of opportunities. This principle must be practised in constituting statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on the dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and Rules.” 

The Court went on to remind the government of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to incorporate the lived experiences of disabled individuals.

In March, the Supreme Court had requested the Central government's response to a plea filed by disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra in the same matter.

Malhotra's complaint was that the film and its trailer contained derogatory references to persons with disabilities (PwDs). 

The issue escalated to the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court dismissed Malhotra's plea, stating that excessive censorship should be avoided. 

The Supreme Court's ruling marks a significant step towards dismantling harmful stereotypes and promoting inclusive representation of disabilities in visual media. 

It now remains to be seen just how many producers, directors, screenwriters and social media creators adhere to these guidelines. 

If you’re any of the above and unsure where or how to begin, consider engaging with disability advocacy groups that can provide insights about disabled lived experiences. 

A lot of nonprofits and independent self-advocates conduct training and sensitisation programs, which could potentially give insights into the community’s realities.