Last month, the Indian Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud ruled that visual media and films must avoid stereotyping differently-abled individuals, emphasising that creators should offer accurate representations of disabilities rather than mocking or mythologising them.
Justice JB Pardiwala, who was on the Bench, called the judgment "path-breaking" and condemned the use of derogatory terms such as 'cripple' and 'spastic,' which perpetuate stigma. The court stressed the importance of understanding disability as a complex, individualised experience rather than applying a “one-size-fits-all” perspective. It highlighted the need to prevent the stigmatisation and discrimination of disabled individuals, acknowledging the significant impact on their identity and dignity.
This judgment was delivered in response to a petition by activist Nipun Malhotra, challenging the insensitive portrayal of differently-abled people in the film ‘Aankh Micholi,’ produced by Sony Pictures. Sharing what prompted this action, Nipun told Asian Voice, “I've been frustrated for a long time with how disability is portrayed in many Indian movies and this movie is not the first time I've seen disability misrepresented in mass media.
“Movies have the power to either perpetuate harmful stereotypes or transform society by challenging them. Unfortunately, degrading and mocking portrayals of disability are all too common in Indian cinema. After watching ‘Aankh Micholi’, I felt that something needed to be done to stop this.”
Nipun initially took the issue to the Delhi High Court where his petition was dismissed in January. “We then appealed to the Supreme Court, and I’m grateful to the honourable Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, for issuing guidelines for the future. Now, any filmmaker or anyone in visual media will be aware that if they misrepresent people with disabilities, there are clear guidelines in place that allow persons with disabilities to take legal action.
“The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this judgment to cover all forms of visual media, which means strong repercussions for those who violate these guidelines. I truly believe this ruling will be a game-changer.”
Kamran Mallick, CEO of Disability Rights UK also thinks that this landmark judgement is a significant step forward in recognising the power of media to shape societal attitudes and the importance of how disabled individuals are portrayed. "I have seen the stereotypical way that Bollywood has portrayed Disabled people in movies for far too long. Growing up, I watched movies that my parents enjoyed, movies which only strengthened the negative perceptions of disabled people. Given this, I look forward to the impact of the Supreme Court of India’s recent guidelines addressing the harmful stereotyping of disabled characters in Bollywood films”, he said.
Nipun also discussed this negative perception of disability, not just in the media but the society. He said, “There is stigma rooted in the belief that their condition is due to bad karma or punishment for past wrongdoings, either by themselves, their parents, or someone in their family. This mindset is even reflected in movies. For example, in the classic film ‘Sholay’, there's a scene where the character Gabbar Singh cuts off the hands of Thakur, portraying it being a greater punishment than killing him. This reinforces the idea that disability is a form of punishment.
“Another issue is that disability is often used as cheap humour or mimicry. People tend to mock or laugh at those with disabilities, which is extremely disappointing. I hope both of these challenges will eventually fade away because they perpetuate the notion that people with disabilities cannot be economic contributors, cannot be independent, and cannot achieve success.”
Nipun very rightly expressed that the world is richer when it respects and includes everyone, recognising that the distinction between 'abled' and 'disabled' is temporary—anyone is just an injury away from experiencing disability. “There's an important distinction between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour.' Humour that highlights the situations faced by persons with disabilities can raise awareness and create understanding, but it's never acceptable to make fun of the disability itself, as that perpetuates harmful stereotypes. The Supreme Court articulated this beautifully during the first hearing of my case, stating that while disability humour is okay, disabling humour is not. The difference, though subtle, is significant", he said.
Mr Mallick also shared his opinion on representing disability stating that it matters not just in changing societal perceptions but also for disabled people themselves. “For disabled people, especially young people, seeing authentic and positive reflections of their experiences in the media is crucial for building self-esteem, identity and a sense of belonging. Disabled actors must be given the opportunity to play disabled characters and then to play roles that are not centred around our impairments. This brings authenticity to the roles and challenges the industry’s tendency to overlook disabled talent. We don’t just want to play in stories that focus on our experience as disabled people but be a wider part of the narrative. When we are portrayed with complexity, dignity, and humanity, it sends a powerful message that our lives are valued and our stories worth telling”, he said.
