Stereotyping differently-abled people on the silver screen has been a common mainstream practice, often used with negative connotations or to caricature them. Passing a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud ruled on July 8 that stereotyping differently-abled persons in visual media and films perpetuates discrimination. The SC maintained that creators have a responsibility to provide a true representation of disabilities rather than mock or mystify people.

The judgment was described as “path-breaking” by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who condemned creators for using terms like ‘cripple’ and ‘spastic,’ which stigmatize disabled persons. This ruling followed a petition filed by activist Nipun Malhotra, who challenged the alleged insensitive portrayal of differently-abled people in the film ‘Aankh Micholi’, produced by Sony Pictures.

Reacting to the judgment, the petitioner told the media, “There is a subtle difference between humor that creates awareness and humor that laughs at situations involving people in the disability space versus humor that laughs at the disability itself. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has beautifully separated ‘disability humor, which is acceptable,’ from ‘disabling humor, which is not acceptable.'”

During the judgment, the SC bench noted several underlying issues with the representation of differently-abled people in cinema. The Chief Justice pointed out that in many films, differently-abled people are portrayed as ‘super-cripples.’

For context, ‘super-cripples’ are depicted as having special talents or skills, implying that the loss of one bodily faculty somehow heightens another, making them almost superhuman and distancing them from the notion of ‘normal.’

The bench also acknowledged that not all forms of speech hinging on stereotypes violate individual dignity. It is imperative to consider the context, intention, and overall meaning before concluding whether specific remarks made in visual media or films are derogatory. The Supreme Court further announced a series of guidelines for creators of films and visual media, asserting that their choice of language should be inclusive rather than ostracizing.

Responding to the judgment, activist lawyer Gaurav Bansal claimed that the court has shown its “humane side” and urged the government to act proactively. 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’. Bansal added, “It is also the duty of the Central Board of Film Certification to look into these issues.”

There are numerous films where differently-abled individuals and disabilities have been caricatured, including the hit films ‘Golmaal’, ‘Welcome’, ‘Housefull 3’, and ‘Judaai’. Conversely, several films have responsibly portrayed disability more realistically, including ‘Margarita with a Straw’, ‘Barfi’, and ‘Taare Zameen Par’, among others.