What happened so far: On July 8, while hearing a plea seeking ban on the film Aankh Micholi for its derogatory portrayal of people with disabilities, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement, laying down comprehensive guidelines to prevent stereotyping and discrimination against people with disabilities in visual media, including films and documentaries.
What is a framework?
The Supreme Court framework focuses on preventing stigma and discrimination that have a significant impact on the dignity and identity of persons with disabilities. The guidelines include a call to avoid words that reinforce systemic discrimination, such as “crippled” and “spastic,” as these words promote negative self-images and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes. A bench headed by India’s Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said stereotyping of persons with disabilities in visual media and films must end and asked creators to accurately represent disabilities instead of mocking them. Words that personalize disability and overlook the societal barriers that cause disability, such as “afflicted,” “suffering,” and “victims,” should be avoided, the bench said. It also asked creators to practice the principle of “nothing about us without us” and involve persons with disabilities in the production and evaluation of visual media content.
What laws guarantee the rights of people with disabilities?
The comprehensive law dealing with the rights of persons with disabilities is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), which came into force on 19 April 2017. This Act replaces the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Other laws providing for the rights of persons with disabilities are the National Trust Act (1999), the Rehabilitation Council of India Act (1992) and the Mental Health Act (2017).
According to Shashank Pandey, a Delhi-based lawyer and founder of the Forum on Politics and Disability, there are two main models for thinking about disability rights: the medical model and the social model. The human rights model is more recent and is an extension of the social model, which holds that people with disabilities are members of society and have the same rights as everyone else. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the human rights model is significant, placing an onus on governments and private organisations to facilitate the full and effective participation of people with disabilities in society. The advantage is that it places individuals in a sphere where they can claim all the human rights principles that apply to everyone. The disadvantage, says Pandey, is that it is an abstract idea and difficult to implement. Pandey adds that the framework is limited as it only covers visual media, and the guidelines could have been sent by the Supreme Court to all departments for awareness.
V Muralidharan of the National Platform for Disability Rights welcomed the judgement, adding that the framework gives weight to the guidelines laid down in the 2016 law. He regretted that the law has not been properly implemented. “But we must not lose sight of the current situation in the country. Disabled people are still seen as recipients of charity. Even the government’s coined word ‘divyan’ sees disabled people through the lens of charity. This is regressive and reinforces a condescending mentality. Also, the use of terms like ‘pappu’ and ‘barak budhi’ by the ruling party to make the opposition look bad only shows how big the fight is,” he said.
What about creative freedom?
Film representations do not have absolute force when made in the context of marginalised communities. They need to be considered in the overall context of the representation and the intention behind the representation. The Supreme Court has stated that “the creative freedom of a filmmaker does not include the freedom to satirise, stereotype, misrepresent or denigrate those who are already marginalised”. In judging these aspects, the “intent” and “overall message” of the film need to be considered.
What is the way forward?
The court stressed the need to work with disability rights groups to obtain their valuable insight and guidance on how to portray people with disabilities respectfully and accurately, and ensure that content is consistent with the lived experiences of people with disabilities. It also said training programs should be implemented for screenwriters, directors, producers and actors to highlight the impact of portrayals on public perception and the lived experiences of people with disabilities.
This is a premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read more than 250 premium articles each month, you have reached your free article limit. Support quality journalism. You have reached your free article limit. Support quality journalism. X You have read {{data.cm.views}} of {{data.cm.maxViews}} free articles. X This is your last free article.
Source link