Respect on Screen: SC Guidelines for Portraying Persons with Disability

The recent ruling brought out by the Indian Supreme Court on the 8th of July, 2024, has made a pivotal shift concerning the portrayal of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in visual and electronic media. This decision goes way beyond guidelines; it marks a social turning point for erasing the negative stereotyping and discriminating approach in media.

The Case

The Indian Supreme Court's recent judgment in Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors (Case No. : Within Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5239 of 2024) the Supreme Court recognizes Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter referred to as ‘PwDs’) in visual media representation. This revolutionary decision sets up a framework to help rid movies, television, and other visual media of PwDs of disrespectful and inaccurate portrayals tearing through stereotype barriers that have long haunted those individuals.

Background

Nipun Malhotra, an individual who is presumably disabled (though the type of disability is not available in the legal proceeding documents) filed a civil suit for defamation against Sony Pictures for portraying the disabled persons in ‘Aankh Micholi’.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not set aside the certification that was given by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Court noted that the CBFC has the responsibility of taking into consideration the depiction of sensitive issues regardless of disability and the certification of the movie. However, since it is crucial to look beyond the immediate subject matter and also take into account the question of representation in general in visual media and its consequences for PwDs, the Court seized this opportunity to set out guidelines for a decent portrayal of PwDs. In the judgment delivered by the Court, there are seven principles (which are elaborated later) that must be taken into account by the creators while portraying PwDs.

Significance of the Judgement:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in connection with the Nipun Malhotra case is quite meaningful for the following reasons. It:

• The very first time that the Supreme Court of India has directly provided such guidelines regarding the portrayal of PwDs in the visual media.
• Emphasizes how the Court has established the cumulative demeaning effects on the dignity and social integration of PwDs of stereotyping and insensitive depictions.
• Establishes a benchmark for future similar cases related to issues of portrayal of PwDs in the visual media.

Supreme Court guidelines regarding representation of PwD

The Supreme Court's judgment outlines seven key guidelines for creators in the visual media industry:

• Language Sensitivity: Do not use terms such as cripple, spastic, and other phrases which can propel a disabled individual to think along those lines and create discrimination. This judgment recommends the adoption of person-first language to refer to PwDs (for example instead of saying a ‘blind man,’ it is preferred to say a man who is blind) and also discourages language that seeks to portray PwDs as beings that are ‘afflicted’ ‘suffering’ or ‘victims.
• Accurate Representation: Ensure that there is an added intention of aiming for medical realism when portraying disability with a view of not empowering wrong information and self-representation of disabled persons. They should seek the help of disability experts in a bid to represent disability truthfully and not fall into the trap of myths associated with this condition.
• Inclusive and Diverse Portrayals: There is a need to paint the multiple facets of PwDs and demonstrate their achievements, strengths as well as the impact on society. The guidelines for portraying PwDs stress the need to avoid representing the latter as helpless, or ‘super cripples,’ people who face no obstacles whatsoever due to disability.
• Avoiding Harmful Stereotypes: Do not make fun of PwDs using misconceptions or portray them in only one form of being. The judgment also disapproves the portrayal of PwDs as people who are sources of laughter or people who are only deserving to be nailed down by their disability.
• Participatory Decision-Making: Swiftly, get PwDs into the development process of such presentations and campaigns mobilizing the social justice principle put forward by the Independent Living Movement: “Nothing about us, without us. ” Disability rights organizations, actors with disabilities, and sensitivity readers can prove to be a great advantage to the creators.
• Collaboration and Consultation: Consult with disability advocacy organizations to get insights and directions on appropriate representation among people with disabilities. This will involve collaboration with the PwDs and this will help in developing content that reflects actual life experiences that most PwDs go through daily instead of bringing out provocative content that might cause the development of more prejudice towards them.
• Training and Sensitization: Training initiatives should be carried out with the writers, directors, producers, and actors to discuss with them the influential portrayals on the public perception as well as on the lives of PwDs. Such programs should include elements such as the social model of disability, language, and representation considerations.

Language as a way of reclaiming the narrative

As a part of the judgment, language is also one of the most significant aspects of the case. Thus, the court demands a fundamental change in the perception of PwDs in media. Ludicrous terms and labeling such as ‘cripple,’ ‘spastic,’ and the like, should be changed to appropriate and encouraging language. The effort should be made to move to the person being the focus (for example, when talking about a person in a wheelchair – it should not be “a wheelchair-bound man/woman” but rather “a man/woman who uses a wheelchair”). This approach removes the notion of disability being the core aspect defining the individuals and acknowledges PwDs as individuals with their identity.

Also, the court avoids the use of such terms as ‘suffering’ or ‘afflicted’ concerning the PwDs as this perpetuates the wrong attitude towards disability since it is considered a burden. Rather, the guidelines help guide creators to present the strengths of the PwDs as people who can overcome obstacles and be productive members of society.

Strengthening the functions of the CBFC

The judgment is quite appreciative of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in enforcing these standards. The court, therefore, directs the CBFC to ensure that it seeks the opinion of disabled experts before it makes the certification. This consultation process will help to make sure that films meet outlined principles and do not continue to reproduce stereotype imagery. In the process, the court tries to strengthen the certification process which may give leaders a sense of a system that will positively encourage the composition of the media content.

Potential Impact

Some of these guidelines can be used to significantly change how PwDs are represented in visual media. By promoting accurate and respectful representations, the judgment ensures that:

• All human beings abide by the basic rights of the individual and worth.
• Ensure equal protection of the rights of PwDs as provided in the Constitution of India and the RPwD Act. The judgment also means that the media will depict PwDs as capable members of society who should be accorded the same respect as everyone else.
• Eliminate the impact of negative stereotypes which interfere with social integration and reception. Through eradicating these misconceptions the court ensures that people with disabilities are accepted within the society without prejudice and the fact that they have disability defines them.
• Promote a new media environment that is, closer to the realities of PwDs. The guidelines will ensure that it is easy to develop media content that portrays PwDs as capable members of society, who deserve equal opportunities thus boosting their self-esteem.
• The judgment indirectly supports the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) mandate for advocating for the portrayal of disability in films. To give disability issues the main concern during the certification process, the Court escalates the responsibility of holding filmmakers abreast of the outlined guidelines.

A Critical Need

The judgment underlines the importance of shifting from the situation, where PwDs are only depicted contingently as part of diversity. It is important for a movie to feature a character with a disability, but it is not when one just includes a disabled character. The creators have to go further, which means presenting the versatility and multilayered lives of PwDs, as well. It helps to involve disability rights organizations and persons with disabilities in this endeavor to attain authenticity.

For instance, rather than confining Pwd characters to mere stereotype roles that portray them as disabled people only, the writers can depict the inner world, dreams, or even pain of the character with Pwd. Discrimination to disability impacts the access of disabled people to equal opportunities that would support their overall development and they should not be defined strictly by their disability. In portraying such aspects of the character’s life like the relationships, career, and goals, a true-to-life representation is brought out thus eliminating the stereotyping of the characters.

Moreover, it is important to use actors with disabilities to portray the roles with an appropriate disability if a casting is available to fully consider this aspect. This approach controves the notion that only disabled actors are capable of portraying PwDs believably and lends credence to the show. Also, having sensitivity readers with disabilities for the scripts and show reviews is one more effective measure. Such readers have often the necessary skills to see problems of stereotyping or insensitivity if they exist concerning the portrayal in question and thus minimize disrespect.

Conclusion

The crux of the matter relates to this recent Judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that has the potential to open a new chapter in portraying PwDs with respect in the visual media. Thus, observing these guidelines can contribute greatly to eliminating stereotypes, everybody’s acceptance, and the media industry’s creation of a tolerant society. The course ahead in achieving these guidelines in television and cinema will only be possible by sustained cooperation between the disability rights activist community, creators of film and television content, and the CBFC. This judgment can be a way towards a possible future where PwDs are portrayed as equals with dignity and respect and with their real-life experiences.

FAQs

What is the legal protection for the disabled population in India?

The Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 gave the fundamental rights like right to equality, right to respect, right to education, right to work and right to healthcare facilities of the persons with disability. This law ensures that they integrate within the society and are able to lead dignify lives.

What is law that safeguards the rights of PwDs in India?

The major law that provides for the rights of PwDs in India is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016. This act repealed a previous law (1995) and is a much better structure to guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and integration of disabled persons in all spheres of life.

Which changes will the guidelines set by the Supreme Court affect in movies and television programs?

The general guidelines which have been issued by the Supreme Court in the recent past have intended for change the portrayal of PwDs in media. It has been forecasted that there will be individual changes from stereotyping which is insensitive towards characterization that is sensitive, correct and appropriate. It will open up the minds of people within the society and give them a deeper perception on the capabilities of people with disability. 

Is there any chance that due to above said guidelines the CBFC certification procedure will be affected?

Yes, the CBCF’ role is boosted with the Supreme Court judgement. It is also stated that the guidelines force the CBFC to seek the advice of disability specialists when passing a film. This guarantees that movies produced and aired do not give a raw deal to persons with disabilities and reinforce stereotype views that are harmful to them.

Is it mandatory to cast actors with disabilities in roles involving disability?

The judgement doesn’t require to cast actors with disabilities but appreciates the attempts of the movie industry for the cause. However, the guidelines call for the filmmakers to consult disability rights groups and talents with disabilities. This can involve accurate portrayals and representation to dispel the usual stereotype that no other individual other than a disabled person can convincingly take a role of a disabled person.