DISABILITY RIGHTS:NIPUN MALHOTRA VS. SONY PICTURES
1. WHAT WAS THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN THE NIPUN MALHOTRA VS. SONY PICTURES CASE ABOUT?
The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed the insensitive portrayal of individuals with disabilities in the film Aanand Mikholi. The Court emphasized that ableism is not humorous and highlighted the need to balance freedom of speech with the dignity of persons with disabilities (PwDs).
2. WHY IS THE LANGUAGE USED IN DISCOURSE ABOUT PwDS IMPORTANT?
Language shapes perceptions and attitudes. The Court highlighted that respectful and accurate language is crucial in promoting the dignity and rights of PwDs. Terms like “divyang” (divine body parts) were debated for their appropriateness, with the focus on using terms that convey respect and dignity.
3. WHAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE RELEVANT TO PwDS?
The judgment reaffirmed that PwDs have fundamental rights that include dignity, humour, job security, equal opportunities in public recruitment, and fair conditions of service. These rights are essential for ensuring that PwDs are treated with respect and equality.
4. WHAT MEASURES DID THE COURT SUGGEST FOR FILMS DEPICTING PwDS?
The Court directed Sony Pictures to create an awareness film about persons with disabilities, consult with PwDs or their representatives, and formulate guidelines for the portrayal of PwDs in media. These measures aim to ensure a more accurate and respectful depiction of disabilities.
5. HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF “OVER-PROTECTIONISM”?
The judgment clarifies that protectionism should not lead to over-correction or the stifling of artistic freedom. Instead, it calls for a balanced approach that respects the dignity of PwDs without compromising on creative expression.
6. WHAT ARE THE COURT’S VIEWPOINTS ON THE REPRESENTATION OF PwDS?
The Court emphasized that the representation of PwDs should be realistic and respectful, avoiding stereotypes. It recognized the complexity of identities and called for portrayals that reflect the true experiences and dignity of PwDs.
7. WHAT LEGAL PRECEDENTS DID THE COURT REFER TO IN ITS JUDGMENT?
The Court referenced several cases that highlight the fundamental rights of PwDs, including:
• UOI v National Federation of Blind (2013): Equal opportunities in public recruitment.
• Vikash Kumar (2021): Fairness in conditions of service.
• Ravindra Dhariwal (2021): The importance of dignity and rights of PwDs.
8. HOW DOES THE JUDGMENT IMPACT FUTURE PORTRAYALS OF PwDS IN MEDIA?
The judgment sets a precedent for more sensitive and respectful portrayals of PwDs in media. It encourages filmmakers to consult with PwDs and adopt guidelines that promote dignity and respect, potentially influencing future media representations and public attitudes.
By addressing these critical aspects, the judgment aims to foster a society that respects and upholds the dignity of all individuals, including those with disabilities.
SRIRAM’s
Share:
Get a call back
Fill the below form to get free counselling for UPSC Civil Services exam preparation
