The Supreme Court’s framework focuses on preventing stigma and discrimination, and recognises their profound impact on the dignity and identity of people with disabilities. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
the story So Far: Hearing on the petition to ban the film on July 8 wink In a landmark judgement on derogatory portrayal of persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent stereotyping and discrimination against persons with disabilities (PWDs) in visual media, including films and documentaries.
What is the outline?
The Supreme Court’s framework focuses on the prevention of stigma and discrimination, recognising their profound impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. The guidelines call for avoiding words that promote institutional discrimination, such as “crippled” and “disabled”, as they contribute to negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that visual media and films must stop stereotyping persons with different disabilities, asking creators to accurately portray disability rather than ridicule them. It said language that individualises disability and ignores disabling social barriers, for example, words such as “afflicted”, “suffering” and “victim”, must be avoided. The Court also asked creators to follow the principle of “nothing about us, nothing without us” and involve persons with disabilities in the creation and evaluation of visual media content.
What are the laws that provide disability rights?
The law that comprehensively deals with disability rights is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act which came into force from April 19, 2017. It replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The National Trust Act (1999), the Rehabilitation Council of India Act (1992), the Mental Health Care Act (2017) are other laws that govern disability rights.
According to Shashank Pandey, a Delhi-based lawyer and founder of the Politics and Disability Forum, disability rights are broadly viewed under two models, namely the medical and the social model. The human rights model, which has come up more recently, is an evolution of the social model that says people with disabilities are part of society and have the same rights as everyone else. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the human rights model is significant as it mandates the government and private parties to facilitate the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society. The advantage is that it puts individuals in a space where all human rights principles that apply to anyone can be claimed by the disabled population. The disadvantage is that it is an abstract idea and difficult to implement, says Mr. Pandey. The framework is also limited, as it is only for the visual media, he said, adding that guidelines could have been sent by the Supreme Court to all departments for sensitisation.
V. Muraleedharan of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled welcomed the decision and said the framework emphasises the guidelines present in the 2016 law. He regrets that the law is not being implemented properly. He said, “However, we cannot ignore the situation prevailing in the country. People with disabilities are still considered objects of charity. Even the term ‘Divyang’ coined by the government looks at disability through the lens of charity. It is regressive and reinforces a patronising mindset. Also, the use of terms like ‘Pappu’ and ‘Balak Budhi’ by the ruling party to show its opponents in a bad light only shows how big the fight is.”
What about creative freedom?
Cinematic expression does not have absolute power when it deals with the context of marginalised communities. It must be seen in the overall context of the expression and the intent behind the expression. The Supreme Court said that “the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to ridicule, stereotype, misrepresent or insult an already marginalised population”. While determining these aspects, the “intent” and “overall message” of the film must be considered.
What is the way forward?
The Court emphasized collaboration with disability advocacy groups to gain invaluable insights and guidance on respectful and accurate portrayals that match the life experiences of persons with disabilities. It also stated that there is a need to implement training programs for writers, directors, producers, and actors to emphasize the impact of portrayals on public perceptions and the life experiences of persons with disabilities.
