'Disabling Humour' Disparaging Persons With Disability Must Be Distinguished From 'Disability Humour' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (July 8) in a significant ruling on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) laid down guidelines for ensuring their sensitive portrayal by Creators on Visual and Electronic Media. The Court also highlighted the difference between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' which often gets overlooked by the media creators.The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was deciding on a plea that challenged the insensitive portrayal of PwDs in the film 'Aankh Micholi,' produced by Sony Pictures. The Court observed that creators should be cautious of the difference between disability humour and disabling humour. The first type, disability humour, is positive and aims to offer a better understanding of disabilities. The second type, disabling humour, is negative and belittles people with disabilities. These two should not be seen as the same because they have very different impacts on the dignity of people with disabilities."We must therefore, 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."Seeing Disability Humour From Modern Social Model And Not Old Medical Constructs The Court analysed that in the past, humour was often used to make fun of people with disabilities, treating their condition as a joke or a tragedy. This old view, known as the medical model, saw disability as a personal misfortune that didn't fit with humour. However, this perspective is outdated. The modern social model understands disability differently, seeing it as a result of societal barriers rather than an individual's problem. This model suggests that stereotypes about disabilities come from not knowing enough about them, which is often due to a lack of representation in mainstream discussions.The Court noted that today humour is increasingly being used by people with disabilities as a way to connect with others and share their experiences. This can help break down harmful myths and change how people think about disability. By using humour, especially making fun of themselves, disabled comedians challenge old views of being 'different' or 'less than' and promote equality. "The medical model treats disability as a personal 'tragedy' which is by definition, incompatible with humour.This understanding is now obsolete under the social model which views disability as a function of social barriers that disable such individuals.The social model says that stereotypes stem from a lack of familiarity with disability. This lack arises due to inadequate representation and participation of persons with disabilities in dominant discourse. Despite the history and the obsolescence of the medical model, humour is not universally denounced in the context of disability. It is now being increasingly used as a sophisticated literary medium for engagement with the society by persons with disabilities. It familiarises the society with the lived experiences of persons with disability, thereby dispelling prejudicial myths, and sensitizing people. Challenging notions of 'otherness' or 'inferiority' associated with persons with disability, humour creates an equal space""Humour is a reclamation of the public discourse by persons with disabilities who are pushing back against the dominant, ableist narratives around disability."Therefore disability humor can be used as a tool for PwDs to initiate healthy conversations of their lives and push back stereotypical notions about themselves. Overall Message Of The Film Determines If Restrictions Under Article 19(2) Can Be Applied The bench referred to its recent Judgement in Vikash Kumar v. UPSC where the court held that insensitive language was contrary to the dignity of persons with disabilities. Applying the same line of reasonings to the guidelines that are laid as above the Court stressed that "language of our discourse ought to be inclusive rather than alienating". It clarified that films may show negative or disparaging language towards people with disabilities if it helps convey the film's overall positive message. This will not fall under the restrictions imposed in Article 19(2). However, if such language only makes things worse for disabled people by increasing social exclusion without any beneficial message, it should be handled carefully. This kind of portrayal is harmful not just because it might hurt feelings, but because it negatively affects how society treats these groups. As long as the overall message of the film justifies the depiction of disparaging language being used against persons with disabilities, it cannot be subjected to restrictions beyond those placed in Article 19(2). However, language that disparages persons ...

'Disabling Humour' Disparaging Persons With Disability Must Be Distinguished From 'Disability Humour' : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags