The prompt BOX
Writing is an art and there’s no better platform to exercise it than your own beloved GT! To unleash the writer
in you, GT brings you a new topic every time and asks for your views on the same. Here are some intriguing
responses from the young writers at Amity for the prompt…
The representation of people with disabilities is a sensitive topic, especially in visual media. Do you think the SC’s guideline regarding the distinguishing of ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disabled humour’, to help show the specially-abled in the right light, can infringe the creative freedom of creators?
“When it comes to representing people with disabilities in visual media, striking a balance between legal responsibilities and creative flexibility is essential. Film producers need to be made aware of the potential social influence of their work so that they make more thoughtful stories. TV shows such as ‘Speechless’ and ‘Atypical’ demonstrate that being creative and caring can coexist.”
Ojas Gupta, AGS Noida, IB 2
“Balancing the representation of people with disabilities in visual media with creative freedom is complex. At times, disabling humour might be necessary to present how scornfully the differently abled are treated in society, and it is pertinent to also construct a narrative where disabling humour is challenged to foster a sense of awareness, understanding, and knowledge in people.”
Aalap Mitra, AIS VKC Lko, X A
“This recent order by the SC was long overdue. We have often heard how people with disabilities are often discriminated. With proper care and love, even children with disabilities can become capable and independent. I believe that there could not be any better medium than visual media to proliferate a sense of understanding in our country.”
Pranshi Sinha, AIS Navi Mumbai, VII C
“I believe that this does not infringe the creative freedom of creators, but rather ensures that the theme of ‘disability’ is not misused. If creators are left unchecked, PwDs mostly are not shown the dignity they deserve. Hence, rather than interpreting the guidelines as a restraint, creators should find more positive ways to think and present their views.”
Priyamvada Rao, AIS MV, XI D
“Disabling humour and disabled humour are conflicting concepts. One shatters the dignity of a person with disability while the other interprets the disability. Stating the difference attempts to make the visual media more effective. This measure not only sustains the dignity of people with disability but also directs the creators to a right path.”
Ayushi Singhal, AIS VYC Lko, XI B
“In my opinion, the SC’s guidelines act as a double-edged sword. On one hand, the marginalised community would be able to break away from the tropes of ‘helpless figures’ in visual media. Whereas, they might limit the nuanced exploration of social issues through satire and humour. Striking a balance is pertinent, for that, it is important to have an open discussion on the matter.”
Shriya Pasricha, AIS Gur 43, X
“The guidelines are a moral compass guiding us towards a more understanding world. True creativity thrives within the boundaries of empathy and respect. These guidelines do not stifle creativity; they elevate it. They invite creators to delve deeper and to craft narratives that are not only entertaining but also respectful.”
Aditya Yadav, AIMC Manesar, XII
“The SC’s guidelines mandate that the representation of PwDs must reflect their lived experiences. This is a wonderful opportunity for creators to make a plethora of inspiring movies on the lives of Paralympic champions, who have defied all odds to not only overcome the prejudice of the world but also work towards a better India. I think distinguishing ‘disabling humour’ from ‘disabled humour’ in visual media, rather than infringing creative freedom, will prove to be momentous in bringing a fresh perspective to the world.”
Yash Wadhwa, AIS Pushp Vihar, XII F
“The Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding the stereotype surrounding disabled people is spot-on. It is disheartening that in visual media, the representation of the specially abled is often mere mockery. There is much more to the disabled world than disability; there’s acceptance, resilience, and strength. Creators should, therefore, responsibly highlight their lives rather than use them for comedic purposes. Creative freedom neither means slapstick mockery, nor glorification. It means having the freedom to depict lives often unheard and undervalued.”
Akshita Shrote, AIS Vas 1, XII B
“The use of words like ‘crippled’ and ‘afflicted’ have been discouraged by the SC, which is a timely step. Media holds the power to depict the challenges of the specially-abled and create a better support system for them by showing their success stories. Movies like ‘Srikanth’ are inspiring tales of people with disabilities that provide a better perspective to the public.”
Yana Suresh, AIS Noida, X A
“Creative freedom is important for artistic expression. Art, including humour, often works by pushing boundaries and making people think through uncomfortable situations. By setting rules on what humour is acceptable about disabilities, there is a risk of limiting free speech and creativity. Creators might feel restricted, fear backlash or legal consequences, and start self-censoring, which can reduce diversity in art. It is important to ensure that guidelines do not become too restrictive. The Supreme Court’s guidelines should be seen as a starting point for ongoing conversations, not the final solution.”
Devina Singh, AIS Jagdishpur, X B
“SC’s judgement does not infringe the rights of content creators in India. It demarcates the ethical boundaries of humour and corresponding societal elements. It aims to undo the historical injustice which portrays physically challenged people as a ‘humorous’ section of the community. Often films in India tend to perpetuate myths pertaining to disabilities, and they are portrayed in a manner contrary to their real lives. This judgement is a path-breaking one to combat objectification and stigmatisation of individuals with disabilities.”
Maira Shadab, AIS Vas 6, X A
“The SC’s guidelines help ensure that people with disabilities are portrayed respectfully and sensitively in art. However, humour is often dependent on pushing social norms and boundaries. What is considered as offensive and what isn’t is subjective for people. Diverse opinions may not be accounted for, which could infringe the creative freedom of an artist.”
Pramith Singh, AIS Saket, XI B
“To clip the wings of a creator can stifle innovation and unfiltered expression that often sparks societal change. However, laughter that stings someone is a cruel jester. To protect the vulnerable without muffling the satirist is a challenge. Perhaps the solution lies not in rigid rules, but in fostering a society where empathy is the norm, not the exception.”
Ekam Sibia, AIS Gur 46, X I