Don’t stereotype, don’t lampoon: Hindi films and SC verdict on portrayal of differently-abled

Differently abled and derision has often gone hand in hand in mainstream Hindi cinema with numerous instances of impairments, visual, speech, physical and others, being used to get laughs – mostly unkind. A trend activists and lawyers hope will end with the Supreme Court’s recent “game changing” verdict.

Stereotyping differently-abled persons in cinema perpetuates discrimination and inequality, the apex court said last week while asking filmmakers to refrain from misleading portrayals and laying down terms such as “crippled” and “spastic” that should not be used.

Humour can be an important element because it sometimes spreads the message about disability and acts as a tool for awareness, said Nipun Malhotra, who filed the petition that led to the Supreme Court verdict.

“But there is a subtle difference between humour that is creating awareness and laughing at situations with people in disability space and humour that laughs at the disability itself. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, has beautifully separated that as ‘disability humour which is acceptable’ and ‘disabling humour that is not acceptable’,” the founder of the Nipman Foundation told PTI.

Read | The Supreme Court ruling on portrayal of disability in films

Activist lawyer Gaurav Bansal said the court has shown its “humane side” and the government should act proactively. Bansal and his associates had earlier filed a petition against the title of Mental Hai Kya, a 2019 film starring Kangana Ranaut and Rajkummar Rao later retitled as Judgementall Hai Kya.

“It is also the duty of the Central Board of Film Certification to look into these things,” he added.

The examples of movies lampooning the differently abled are plenty.

The success of Rohit Shetty’s 2006 Golmaal, for instance, actually spawned a multistarrer franchise. The laughs came mainly from the many discomfiting situations centred around Lucky, a character with a speech disability played by Tusshar Kapoor. It also featured a blind couple, essayed by Paresh Rawal and Sushmita Mukerjee, for laughs. Then there was the 2004 Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, starring Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar and Priyanka Chopra Jonas, which had the late Kader Khan playing Duggal Sahab, a person with a different disability every day.

Judaai, the 1997 hit featuring Sridevi, Anil Kapoor, and Urmila Matondkar, featured a character played by Upasana Singh with a speech disorder. The film continues to be an active part of the meme culture in the era of social media.

There are also those films that have forwarded audience knowledge – and understanding— of various impairments with empathetic portrayals.

Like Naseeruddin Shah’s role as a blind school principal in Sparsh. And 44 years later, comes Rajkummar Rao’s portrayal as the visually-impaired industrialist Srikanth Bolla in Srikanth.

Shreyas Talpade-starrer Iqbal (2005) told the story of an aspiring cricketer man who suffers from a speech and hearing problem and overcomes the odds to become a triumph on the field.

Paa, fronted by Amitabh Bachchan, in 2009 was about a young boy with progeria, a rare genetic disorder that causes children to age rapidly, starting in the first two years of their life.

Margarita With A Straw (2014) focused on a woman with cerebral palsy, and 2018’s Hichki starring Rani Mukerji was about a teacher with Tourette syndrome.

In this scenario of but a few films looking at disabilities in all its dimensions, the Supreme Court verdict is a game changer, said Mr. Malhotra.

“This is the first time that the Supreme Court has properly laid down guidelines for the portrayal of persons with disabilities,” Mr. Malhotra said.

His petition came after he watched the 2023 film Aankh Micholi, which contained deprecatory references to differently-abled persons. The Hindi movie, directed by Umesh Shukla and written by Jitendra Parmar, revolves around a “family of misfits”.

Mr. Malhotra, who has a locomotor disability, said the film was derogatory and such projections increase and reinforce stereotypes as well as spread misinformation about disabilities.

“The movie called somebody with a memory loss ‘bhulakkad baap’, it called somebody who stammers an ‘atki hui cassette’, night blindness was totally misappropriated and misrepresented compared to what it actually is as a disability,” Mr. Malhotra said.

“…As a person with a disability myself, I felt hurt and offended by it. That’s really what motivated me to go to court,” he added.

The Supreme Court guidelines, he said, will be a useful tool for the community in general to challenge something when they are in violation of them.

“I’m pretty optimistic that it will create a positive change. Not only movie makers, but all content creators will think twice before laughing at disability for the sake of disability itself,” Mr. Malhotra said.

Anil Joshi, a retired software professional and activist, agreed and said he hopes films and visual mediums from now on treat people with disabilities as equals.

“Cinema is driven by either commercial motives or charity, both extremes. Each individual needs to be different yet their basic needs are the same. Human rights is a cliched term but if we treat them as equals, they will perform in their own capacities in achieving their potential.

“Don’t say he does this despite disability. Just say this person is capable of facing different challenges. We need to educate society at large,” Joshi, who is associated with several civil society organisations, including Down Syndrome’s Parents Society, said.

Diversity, he stressed, needs to be recognised.

“… then we have to make the environment accessible for the overall inclusion of every individual regardless of physical and mental capacity or other classifications… Ultimately, total inclusion is what we should aim for,” Joshi added.

In its July 8 judgement, the Supreme Court said language that disparages persons with disabilities, marginalises them further and supplements the disabling barriers in their social participation must be approached with caution.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, said words cultivate institutional discrimination and terms such as “cripple” and “spastic” have come to acquire devalued meanings in societal perceptions about persons with disabilities.

They contribute to negative self image and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and practices in society, the apex court said while enumerating a framework of the portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media.

The bench said visual media must reflect the lived experiences of the differently abled people and that their portrayal should not be a unidimensional, ableist characterisation.

It also said such portrayals should reflect the multi-faceted lives of persons with disabilities, emphasising their roles as active community members who contribute meaningfully across various spheres of life.

“By highlighting their achievements and everyday experiences, media can shift the narrative from one of limitation to one of potential and agency.

“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,” the bench said.