Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, highlighted how certain words like “cripple” and “spastic” have developed negative connotations that perpetuate discrimination against persons with disabilities in societal perceptions.
New Delhi: Today (15th July): In mainstream Hindi cinema, the portrayal of differently abled individuals has often been marred by unkind humor, using impairments—visual, speech, physical, and others—to elicit laughs. Activists and lawyers are hopeful this trend will end following the Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling.
The apex court declared that stereotyping differently abled persons in cinema perpetuates discrimination and inequality. It urged filmmakers to avoid misleading portrayals and banned the use of derogatory terms like “crippled” and “spastic.“
Humor can play a crucial role in spreading awareness about disability, said Nipun Malhotra, who filed the petition leading to the Supreme Court’s verdict.
“There is a subtle difference between humor that creates awareness by highlighting situations involving people with disabilities and humor that mocks the disability itself. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has clearly distinguished between ‘disability humor,’ which is acceptable, and ‘disabling humor,’ which is not acceptable,”
Nipun Malhotra, founder of the Nipman Foundation, told media
Activist lawyer Gaurav Bansal praised the court for demonstrating its “humane side” and urged the government to take proactive measures. Bansal and his associates had previously filed a petition against the title of the 2019 film “Mental Hai Kya,” starring Kangana Ranaut and Rajkummar Rao, which was later retitled “Judgementall Hai Kya.”
“It is also the duty of the Central Board of Film Certification to address these issues,”
he added.
There are numerous examples of movies mocking differently abled individuals. For instance, the success of Rohit Shetty’s 2006 film “Golmaal” led to a multistarrer franchise. The humor primarily stemmed from uncomfortable situations involving Lucky, a character with a speech disability played by Tusshar Kapoor. The film also featured a blind couple, portrayed by Paresh Rawal and Sushmita Mukerjee, for comedic effect.
Then there was the 2004 film “Mujhse Shaadi Karogi,” starring Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar, and Priyanka Chopra Jonas, which featured the late Kader Khan as Duggal Sahab, a character with a different disability every day.
The 1997 hit “Judaai,” featuring Sridevi, Anil Kapoor, and Urmila Matondkar, included a character with a speech disorder played by Upasana Singh. This film continues to be a popular part of meme culture on social media.
READ ALSO: PIL Challenges Exclusion of Disabled Persons from Judicial Appointments
Conversely, some films have contributed to audience understanding of various impairments through empathetic portrayals. For example, Naseeruddin Shah’s role as a blind school principal in “Sparsh,” and 44 years later, Rajkummar Rao’s portrayal of the visually impaired industrialist Srikanth Bolla in “Srikanth.”
Shreyas Talpade’s _“Iqbal” told the inspiring story of an aspiring cricketer with speech and hearing impairments who overcomes the odds to succeed on the field.
In 2009, “Paa,” starring Amitabh Bachchan, centered around a young boy with progeria, a rare genetic disorder causing rapid aging in children.
“Margarita With A Straw” focused on a woman with cerebral palsy, and the 2018 film “Hichki,” starring Rani Mukerji, depicted a teacher with Tourette syndrome.
In this landscape, with only a few films addressing disabilities comprehensively, the Supreme Court’s verdict is a game changer, said Malhotra. “This is the first time the Supreme Court has properly laid down guidelines for the portrayal of persons with disabilities,”
he noted.
His petition was prompted by his viewing of the 2023 film “Aankh Micholi,” which included derogatory references to differently abled individuals. Directed by Umesh Shukla and written by Jitendra Parmar, the Hindi movie revolves around a “family of misfits.”
Malhotra, who has a locomotor disability, criticized the film for its derogatory portrayal, arguing that such depictions perpetuate stereotypes and spread misinformation about disabilities.
“The film labeled someone with memory loss as ‘bhulakkad baap,’ referred to a person who stammers as ‘atki hui cassette,’ and misrepresented night blindness compared to its actual impact as a disability,”
Malhotra explained.
“As someone with a disability myself, I found it deeply hurtful and offensive. That’s what motivated me to take legal action,” he emphasized.
Malhotra expressed optimism that the Supreme Court guidelines will empower the community to challenge violations effectively.
“I believe these guidelines will bring about positive change. It will encourage not only filmmakers but all content creators to refrain from mocking disabilities merely for comedic effect,”
he stated.
Anil Joshi, a retired software professional and activist, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing his hope that films and visual media going forward will portray people with disabilities as equals.
“Cinema often operates at extremes—commercialism or charity—but each individual, regardless of ability, shares basic human needs. While ‘human rights’ may sound clichéd, treating everyone equally allows them to achieve their potential in their own unique ways,”
Joshi concluded.
“Don’t frame achievements in terms of overcoming disability; rather, highlight how individuals can tackle various challenges,” emphasized Anil Joshi, associated with civil society organizations like the Down Syndrome Parents Society.
Joshi stressed the importance of recognizing diversity and making environments accessible for the full inclusion of every individual, regardless of their physical or mental capacities or any other classifications. “Ultimately, our goal should be total inclusion,”
he added.
In its July 8 ruling, the Supreme Court cautioned against using language that disparages persons with disabilities, noting that such terms further marginalize them and reinforce social barriers.
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, leading the bench, highlighted how certain words like “cripple” and “spastic” have developed negative connotations that perpetuate discrimination against persons with disabilities in societal perceptions.
The Supreme Court emphasized that derogatory terms contribute to negative self–image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and practices in society, particularly in its framework for the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media.
The bench outlined that visual media should accurately depict the lived experiences of differently abled individuals, avoiding simplistic and ableist characterizations. It stressed the importance of portraying the multifaceted lives of persons with disabilities, highlighting their roles as active community members who contribute meaningfully in various aspects of life.
The court emphasized that media should focus on showcasing their achievements and everyday experiences, aiming to shift the narrative from one of limitation to one of potential and agency.
Furthermore, the bench cautioned against portraying persons with disabilities through stereotypes, rejecting both the portrayal based on myths and the exaggerated depiction of ‘super cripples.’ This term suggests that individuals with disabilities possess extraordinary heroic abilities, which should be represented with dignity and respect.
