A legal appeal by an individual with arthrogryposis, who challenged the film "Aankh Micholi" for its portrayal of persons with disabilities. The appellant argued that the film's depiction was derogatory and violated constitutional rights and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, stating the film's overall message was about overcoming disabilities. The document analyzes relevant laws, including the Cinematograph Act and 1991 Guidelines, the balance between freedom of expression and preventing harmful stereotypes, and the broader impact of media portrayals on social attitudes towards disabilities. It emphasizes the need for dignity, non-discrimination, and respectful representation in media.

A. Factual Background

1. Introduction of Appellant and Case

   • Appellant: Founder of a disability awareness organization, person with arthrogryposis.
   • Grievance: Misrepresentation of disabilities in the film "Aankh Micholi."

2. High Court Judgment

   • Dismissal: Petition under Article 226 dismissed on grounds of maintainability.

3. Legal Notice and Response

   • Notice: Appellant sent a legal notice to Sony Pictures.
   • Response: Sony Pictures defended the film's portrayal.

B. The High Court

4. High Court's Findings
   • Certification: Film granted a 'U' certificate.
   • Explanation: Film's message about overcoming disabilities accepted.

C. Legislative Framework

5. Relevant Laws

   • Cinematograph Act, 1952
   • Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

6. Film Certification Process

   • Board and Committees: Role in certifying films.
   • Advisory Panels: Assess films' public impact.

7. Guidelines for Certification

   • 1991 Guidelines: Prohibit abuse of persons with disabilities.
   • Overall Message: Films must be assessed as a whole.

D. The Context of Speech

8. Freedom of Speech

   • Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of expression.
   • Reasonable Restrictions: Under Article 19(2).

9. Court Precedents

   • Narrow Restraints: Restrictions on cinematic expression.
   • Expert Body: Courts defer to film certification bodies.

E. Disabling Imagery in Media

10. Historical Portrayals

    • Negative Stereotypes: Depictions of persons with disabilities as pitiable or burdensome.

11. Impact of Stereotypes

    • Social Exclusion: Stigma and social exclusion reinforced by media.

12. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

    • Negative Assumptions: Stereotypes shape public perceptions and personal outcomes.

F. Balancing Speech and Dignity

13. Legal and Ethical Considerations
    • Overall Message: Importance of the film’s overall message.
    • Dignity: Speech must respect the dignity of marginalized groups.

I. Introduction

• Humor and Stereotypes
  • Pejorative jokes reinforce stereotypes and validate abusive attitudes towards persons with disabilities.
  • Humor's dual role: it can be liberating or stigmatizing depending on the context and the joke-teller.

II. Stereotyping as an Anti-Thesis to Dignity and Non-Discrimination

• Impact of Stereotypes
  • Stereotypes impact discrimination and the enjoyment of fundamental rights.
  • Court cases (e.g., Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) show how laws based on stereotypes violate rights to equality and dignity.

III. The Framework of the RPwD Act, 2016

• Social Model of Disability

  • Disability arises from societal barriers, not impairments.
  • The RPwD Act emphasizes dignity, autonomy, non-discrimination, and effective participation.

• Legislative Evolution

  • Historical context: 2001 Census, Mental Health Act of 1987, Rehabilitation Council of India (1986), Persons with Disabilities Act (1995).
  • RPwD Act aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

IV. International Jurisprudence

• Human Rights Approach

  • Disability rights incorporated into broader human rights paradigms.
  • CRPD promotes dignity, autonomy, and full participation in society.

• Equality and Non-Discrimination

  • CRPD Article 5 mandates equality and legal protection against discrimination.
  • International cases (e.g., Glor v. Switzerland, Bacher v. Austria) reflect the human rights approach to disability.

• Awareness-Raising

  • CRPD Article 8 mandates awareness-raising measures.
  • Importance of combating stereotypes and promoting positive perceptions.
  • Role of media in shaping attitudes and promoting the rights of persons with disabilities.

V. Indian Jurisprudence Aligns with the Human Rights Approach

• Legal Framework

  • Laws for persons with disabilities rooted in dignity and equality under the Constitution.
  • RPwD Act emphasizes positive obligations of the State to uphold rights.

• Judicial Rulings

  • Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission: RPwD Act's protective ambit includes equality, non-discrimination, and dignity.
  • Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India: Emphasis on dignity and equality for persons with mental disabilities.

• Evolving Judicial Role

  • Addressing complex intersections of disability, gender, and mental health.
  • Preventing stigmatization and discrimination, promoting full participation in society.

VI. Speech Must Not Prejudice the Marginalized and Disenfranchise Them Further

• Free Speech and Marginalization
  • Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
  • Importance of diverse voices in social debate.
  • Speech that targets marginalized groups may not enjoy full protection under Article 19(1)(a).

F. Caveat: Disability Humour v. Disabling Humour

63. Oppressive Representation and Free Speech

• Context and intention must be considered before labeling speech as prejudicial.

64. Historical Use of Humour Against Disability

• Humour historically mocked disabilities and reinforced stereotypes.
• Shift from the medical model to the social model of disability.

65. Contemporary Use of Disability Humour

• Increasing use of humour by persons with disabilities to engage society.
• Humour as a tool to challenge stereotypes and promote equality.

66. Distinguishing Disabling Humour from Disability Humour

• Disabling humour denigrates; disability humour seeks understanding.
• Criteria for evaluating humour's impact on dignity and stereotypes.

G. The Present Case

67-69. Appellant's Claims and High Court's Findings

• Appellant contested the film's portrayal of disabilities.
• High Court upheld the filmmaker's freedom of speech and expression.

70. Balancing Rights and Overall Message

• Filmmakers' freedom does not extend to harmful stereotypes.
• Necessity to balance rights if overall message justifies portrayal.

71-72. Appellant's Requests and Court's Responses

• No recommendation for beeping parts of the film.
• No compelled speech for awareness film by Sony Pictures.
• Adequate rules and expert consultations under the Cinematograph Act.

73. Framework for Respectful Portrayal in Visual Media

• Language should be inclusive and non-alienating.
• Accurate representation of disabilities and lived experiences.
• Diverse and balanced portrayal of persons with disabilities.
• Decision-making bodies should include participation from persons with disabilities.
• Collaboration with disability advocacy groups for accurate portrayals.
• Training programs for media creators on respectful and accurate representation.

H. Conclusion

75-76. Disposition of Appeal and Pending Applications

• Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs.
• Pending applications disposed of.