Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – The appellant seeks recommendations to beep certain parts of the present film as well:

Held: This Court endorses slow interference with the determination of an expert body under the Cinematograph Act, particularly to allow the exhibition of a film – It is for the Board to draw the line between permissible and impermissible portrayal of social ills through visual media, and ensure that the Guidelines are meant to be read as broad standards for the same – The certification in the present case implies that the Board found that the overall message of the film was in accordance with the guidelines and the RPwD Act – This Court is not inclined to interfere with this finding by recommending beeping out parts of the film, especially considering the inclusion of a disclaimer in the film. [Para 72.1]

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Recommendation that Sony Pictures make an awareness film according to Section 7 (d) of the RPwD Act:

Held: The recommendation that Sony Pictures make an awareness film according to Section 7 (d) of the RPwD Act cannot be granted  – Section 7(d) is directed towards the appropriate government – This Court has underlined that the principle of reasonable accommodation includes positive obligations of private parties to support persons with disabilities and facilitate their full participation, this Court does not agree that Section 7(d) includes such an obligation against private persons – Even otherwise, such a direction would amount to compelled speech – Such compelled speech has been allowed by this Court under Article 19(1) of the Constitution, albeit in a very different context from the present – The recommendation sought in the present case is for creation of a whole different film on the ground of a statutory mandate of spreading awareness which is not even directed towards a private entity such as Sony Pictures – The positive obligation mentioned in Vikash Kumar cannot be so extended to compel speech in the manner suggested by the appellant. [Para 72.2]

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 – Inclusion of subject matter experts to the Board and advisory panels:

Held: On inclusion of subject matter experts to the Board and advisory panels, this Court believes that the field is sufficiently occupied by the Cinematograph Act and the certification Rules of 1983 and 2024 does not merit interference – Under the 1983 Rules, the Board may take steps to assess public reactions to films – The Examining Committee is supposed to include women as its members – The 1983 Rules and the 2024 Rules envisage consultation with a subject matter expert: the Examining Committee’s final report is forwarded to the Chairperson in 10 days, unless the Committee feels that expert opinion is necessary – In that case, it may submit a provisional report and seek expert opinion before submitting the final report – The 2024 Certification Rules go a step further and provide that a Regional Officer may invite subject matter experts for the examination of the film by the Examination Committee or Revising Committee. [Para 72.3]

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 – Disparaging portrayal of person with disabilities:

Held: The Board must decide whether a disparaging portrayal stood redeemed by the overall message or not – No doubt this entails a complex balancing of interests – It would be ideal if the statutory bodies included subject matter experts – The 2024 Rules are a welcome acknowledgment of this principle and consultations with subject matter experts on disability would certainly better inform the perspective of the Board – The policy underlying the Act and the Rules already accounts for expert consultation – This Court cannot interfere merely because it could be better or that a better alternative is available, when the legality of such policy is not in question. [Para 72.5]

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 – The appellant has sought formulation of guidelines to restrict content that contravenes the Constitution and the RPwD Act 2016:

Held: The guidelines under the Act are quite extensive and cover the field – Such directions are issued to fill legislative gaps – If allowed, such guidelines would be akin to reading the provisions of one statute that is, the RPwD Act 2016 into another statute, that is the Cinematograph Act, even though the latter does not suffer from a vacuum on the issue, and the statutory expert body is presumed to have account for the effect of the former anyway – Courts cannot trench into policy-making. [Para 72.6]

Constitution of India – Art. 19 – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 – Provision of a framework of the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media that aligns with the anti-discrimination and dignity affirming objectives of the Constitution as well as the RPwD Act – The framework is laid down is in line with findings in Vikash Kumar case where it was emphasised that fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution apply with equal rigour to persons with disabilities:

Held: The representation of persons with disabilities must regard the objective social context of their representation and not marginalised persons with disability: (i) Words cultivate institutional discrimination – Terms such as “cripple” and “spastic” have come to acquire devalued meanings in societal perceptions about persons with disabilities – They contribute to the negative self-image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and practices in society; (ii) Language that individualises the impairment and overlooks the disabling social barriers (e.g. terms such as “afflicted”, “suffering”, and “victim”) should be avoided or adequately flagged as contrary to the social model; (iii) Creators must check for accurate representation of a medical condition as much as possible – The misleading portrayal of what a condition such as night blindness entails may perpetuate misinformation about the condition, and entrench stereotypes about persons with such impairments, aggravating the disability; (iv)Persons with disabilities are underrepresented – Average people are unaware of the barriers persons with disabilities face – Visual media must reflect their lived experiences – Their portrayal must capture the multitudes of their lived realities, and should not be a uni-dimensional, ableist characterisation; (v) Visual media should strive to depict the diverse realities of persons with disabilities, showcasing not only their challenges but also their successes, talents, and contributions to society – This balanced representation can help dispel stereotypes and promote a more inclusive understanding of disability; (vi) They should neither be lampooned based on myths (such as, ‘blind people bump into objects in their path’) nor presented as ‘super cripples’ on the other extreme – This stereotype implies that persons with disabilities have extraordinary heroic abilities that merit their dignified treatment; (vii) Decision-making bodies must bear in mind the values of participation – The ‘nothing about us, without us’ principle is based on the promotion of participation of persons with disabilities and equalisation of opportunities – It must be put to practice in constituting statutory committees and inviting expert opinions for assessing the overall message of films and their impact on dignity of individuals under the Cinematograph Act and Rules; (viii) The CPRD also requires consultation with and involvement of persons with disabilities in the implementation of measures to encourage portrayal that is consistent with it; (ix) Training and sensitization programs should be implemented for individuals involved in creating visual media content, including writers, directors, producers, and actors – These programs should emphasize the impact of their portrayals on public perceptions and the lived experiences of persons with disabilities – Topics should include the principles of the social model of disability, the importance of respectful language, and the need for accurate and empathetic representation. [Para 74]

Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Disability humour and Disabling humour:

Held: Humour and disabilities are viewed as uneasy companions – This is primarily because of the historical use of humour to mock disability, make jokes at the expense of persons with disabilities and to use them for comic relief – This Court must distinguish ‘disabling humour’ that demeans and disparages persons with disability from ‘disability humour’ which challenges conventional wisdom about disability – While disability humour attempts to better understand and explain disability, disabling humour denigrates it – The two cannot be equated in their impact on dignity and on stereotypes about persons with disabilities. [Para 66]

Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression  – Cinematograph Act, an instance of reasonable restriction:

Held: A filmmaker’s right to exhibit films is a part of their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – The Cinematograph Act is an instance of reasonable restrictions on this right under the ‘decency and morality’ rubric of Article 19(2) – Prior certification under the Act has been regarded as a valid restraint on cinematic speech because of its ‘instant appeal’ and the ability to stir emotions more deeply than other artistic media. [Para 22]

Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) and Art. 19(2) – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – Restraints on films – Principles:

Held: Restraints on films are founded on principles of due process, social interest, limited application in cases of absolute necessity and clear purpose of the restraint – Among the principles which must be borne in mind when deciding the fitness of a film for public exhibition include the following: (i) Social impact of the film is judged from the perspective of an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence and not a hypersensitive person; (iii) Social change, rather than orthodox notions or what is right and moral must be borne in mind; and (iv) The film must be judged by its overall message and not from isolated depictions of social evils. [Para 25]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 – Core aim:

Held: The RPwD Act represents a fundamental shift from viewing disability through a charity lens to a human rights perspective – Its core aim is to empower persons with disabilities by upholding their inherent dignity and autonomy – The Act broadly underscores principles of non-discrimination, full and effective participation in society, and the inclusion of all individuals, emphasizing the respect for differences and the acceptance of disabilities as an integral part of human diversity – It enshrines equality of opportunity, accessibility, gender equality, and the recognition of the evolving capacities of children with disabilities, ensuring their right to maintain their identities. [Para 38]

Jurisprudence – International Jurisprudence –Persons with disabilities – Discussed.

Jurisprudence – Indian Jurisprudence aligns with the human rights approach – Persons with disabilities – Discussed.