The Supreme Court in a recent case dismissed an appeal seeking guidelines against filmmakers, regarding provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 the composition of the Board and the Advisory Panel under the Cinematograph Act 1952 and the recommendations to beep certain parts of the film under contest in the present case.
Brief Facts
The appellant, founder of an organisation that promotes awareness about disabilities, is aggrieved by the manner in which person with disabilities have been portrayed in the movie titled “Aankh Micholi”. The appellant filed a petition before High Court under article 226 which was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. The respondent explained that overall message of the film revolves around overcoming the disability and dwelt on the strength of the characters suffering from disabilities. The High Court ruled that petitioner does not have any objection to the explanation offered by the respondent therefore, challenge to the film is not established and dismissed the petition. As a result, the appellant approached Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant contended that film’s portrayal is derogatory to persons with disabilities and conveys the message that they ought to conceal their impairments in order to deserve a matrimonial partner. The appellant further urged that film creates misconceptions, biases and prejudices against person with disabilities, promotes the idea that pwds are unequal, presents them as subject of comic relief and fails to present inclusive and empathetic representations of person with disabilities.
Contentions of the Respondent
The respondent, Sony Pictures, stated that overall message of the film was one of ‘overcoming the challenge of disability’ and sought to depict the struggle faced by the them and their families and in an effort to overcome them. The
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court stated that the freedom under Article 19(1)(a), that is the creative freedom of the filmmaker cannot include the freedom to lampoon, stereotype, misrepresent or disparage those already marginalized. Article 19(2) of the Constitution is exhaustive of the limitations that can be applied to the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). These limitations under the garb of ‘decency and morality’ of Article 19(2) can be seen in form of the Cinematograph Act.
The court referred to the KA Abbas v. Union of India and emphasised that restraints on cinematic expressions have to be extremely narrow and must be determined from the vantage of an ordinary person of common sense rather than a hypersensitive person. The court further highlighted the need to be alive to social and directed that Board should put restraints only, when necessary, rather than merely expedient.
Further, the court mentioned the Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon which differentiated between mere portrayal of social evil and extolling the social evil. It was held that mere depiction of social evil is not impermissible unless the message of the film is to glorify that social evil.
The apex court further said that “representation of persons with disabilities must regard the objective social context of their representation and not marginalise persons with disability. The apex court also made it clear that as long as the overall message of the film justifies the depiction of disparaging language being used against persons with disabilities, therefore it cannot be subjected to restrictions beyond those placed in Artice 19(2). Additionally, disabling imagery by media stigmatised views about disability as a ‘vulnerability’ and focuses on medical aspects rather than social aspects of the impairment. This impacts person with disabilities as individuals as well as subject them to stigma and social exclusion.
Decision of the Court
In light of the above observations, the Supreme Court dismissed the above appeal and ruled that High Court was justified in not granting the reliefs asked by the appellant.
Case Title: Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble CJI Mr. DY Chandrachud & Hon’ble Justice Mr. JB Pardiwala
Case Details: Civil Appeal No. 7230/2024
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. Md Anas Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Adv. Mr. Martin George, Adv. Mr. Md Tasnimul Hassan, Adv. Mr. Avnish Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Tandon, Adv. Mr. Shreyans Raniwala, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alipak Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Karishma Karthik, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv. Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Prateek Tanmay, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
