A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case critically examines the portrayal of individuals with disabilities in visual media, particularly the film “Aankh Micholi.” The appellant, Nipun Malhotra, contended that the film violates the dignity of persons with disabilities by perpetuating stereotypes and derogatory representations, contravening the principles of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Supreme Court addressed the legal implications of such portrayals in light of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the regulatory framework of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. It considered the balance between creative freedom and the rights of marginalized communities, emphasizing nuanced representation. The Court refrained from recommending censorship but reinforced the need for sensitivity and inclusivity in media portrayals.

Keywords: Disabilities, Cinematograph Act, RPwD Act, Article 19(1)(a), Media Stereotypes, Disability Humour.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024.

iii) Judgement Date: 08 July 2024.

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, and J. B. Pardiwala, J.

vi) Author: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 246.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and 2024.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None.

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Media Law, Constitutional Law, Disability Rights, Freedom of Expression.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case originates from a dispute concerning the portrayal of persons with disabilities in the movie Aankh Micholi. The appellant, a disability rights advocate, sought judicial intervention to prevent dissemination of harmful stereotypes about disabilities in popular media. He argued that such depictions breach statutory safeguards under the RPwD Act, perpetuate societal biases, and diminish the dignity of individuals with disabilities. The film received a “U” certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and the appellant challenged this, requesting censorship or remedial action.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant, Nipun Malhotra, has arthrogryposis, a congenital condition, and is an advocate for disability rights.
2. The controversy stemmed from the trailer and content of Aankh Micholi, a film that portrayed characters with disabilities in a comedic and stereotypical manner.
3. The appellant sent a legal notice to Sony Pictures, alleging violations of constitutional principles and the RPwD Act.
4. The CBFC certified the film for public exhibition, citing compliance with established guidelines.
5. Key grievances included:
   • Misrepresentation of conditions like night blindness and Alzheimer’s disease.
   • Use of derogatory epithets for characters with disabilities.
   • Reinforcement of ableist stereotypes.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Does the film violate the RPwD Act and the dignity of persons with disabilities?
ii. Should statutory guidelines under the Cinematograph Act be revised to ensure sensitive portrayals?
iii. How do freedom of speech and restrictions on content intersect in the context of disability portrayals?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant argued that:

1. The film violates the RPwD Act, which mandates non-discrimination and the promotion of inclusivity.
2. Portrayals in the film propagate harmful stereotypes, fostering societal biases against individuals with disabilities.
3. The CBFC failed its statutory duty by certifying the film without addressing these concerns.
4. Judicial intervention is necessary to mandate guidelines for disability representation in visual media, consistent with constitutional principles of dignity and equality.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Sony Pictures and the CBFC defended that:

1. The film’s overarching message emphasizes overcoming disability, not ridiculing it.
2. Certification was granted based on established guidelines, with the film adhering to the standards of “decency and morality.”
3. The freedom of speech and expression protects artistic and cinematic works.
4. The reliefs sought would constitute an undue interference in the creative process and regulatory decisions.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Cinematograph Act, 1952:
Governs the certification of films and specifies conditions under which films may be censored.
ii. RPwD Act, 2016:
Prohibits discrimination and mandates respect for the dignity of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life.
iii. Constitution of India (Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)):
Protects freedom of speech, subject to reasonable restrictions for public morality, decency, and social welfare.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Court upheld the certification process while emphasizing the importance of nuanced and respectful portrayals of disabilities. It stressed that statutory bodies like the CBFC must consider the broader implications of creative works without compromising free expression.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court acknowledged the potential of visual media to shape societal attitudes and underscored the need for creators to be sensitive to the rights and lived realities of persons with disabilities.

c. Guidelines:
The judgment provided a framework for creators, including:

1. Avoidance of derogatory language and stereotypical portrayals.
2. Inclusion of advisory experts on disability in the CBFC.
3. Training programs for filmmakers to foster inclusive representation.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment balances the competing interests of free expression and the rights of marginalized communities. It highlights the evolving legal landscape for disability rights in India and sets a precedent for the ethical responsibilities of content creators.

REFERENCES

1. Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996) 4 SCC 1.
2. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1.
3. Nachiketa Walhekar v. CBFC (2018) 1 SCC 778.
4. The Cinematograph Act, 1952.
5. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.