Suhani Goel, First Year B.A. Mass Communication Student at Symbiosis, Pune and Samay Tulsyan, Fourth Year B.B.A. L.L.B (Trade Hons.) student at National Law School, Jodhpur
Abstract
Disability in Indian media is not merely misrepresented but also systematically framed through three dominant lenses: pity, inspiration, and erasure. These trends not only distort the realities of the lives of 26.8 million disabled people but also undermine the rights-based approach of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and the dignity and equality guarantee in Articles 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has begun addressing discriminatory representation while UNESCO has issued inclusive guidelines. Yet, gap persists due to structural barriers such as lack of representation in artistic fields, use of insensitive language, and poor accessibility. Without these practices being harmonized with the available legal provisions, the rights provided on paper will continue to be just a dream to persons with disabilities.
Portrayal of Disability through Media
According to the 2011 Census, 2.68 million people in India are disabled, representing 2.21% of the population,[AS2] a figure that exceeds the total population of Sri Lanka. Despite this, narratives around disability in Indian media are predominantly shaped by non-disabled perspectives. Bollywood films routinely cast non-disabled actors in disabled roles: Barfi, Srikanth, My Name Is Khan and Golmaal are prominent examples of this practice. Media frames disability either as personal tragedy or as human-interest inspiration.The stories that result reflect the perspective of those telling them. This matters because the narratives provided by the media on disability shape the public perception, which in turn affects how disabled people are treated and understood in society. If the audience is exposed to only stories of pity or exceptionalism, they are less likely to accept persons with disabilities as equal citizens who have the right to enjoy full citizenship.
A Country Playing Catch-Up
For most of India’s independent history, the legal definition of disability was based on a limited number of seven conditions. In 2016, the RPwD Act added 21 more categories to that list, including multiple sclerosis, autism, and thalassemia, bringing the Indian law in line with the social model of disability, established in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which India ratified in 2007.
Law alone does not change attitudes on its own. Perceptions of a disability, are what a disabled person is believed to be capable of and how they are treated, are all influenced by the everyday experience of disability via all sorts of media.As long as these representations remain distorted, the legal gains of the RPwD Act will be difficult to translate into lived equality.
The Three Traps of Disability Storytelling
The Indian media has a tendency to portray disabled individuals in three patterns. They are both detrimental in their respective ways, and when combined, they help to perpetuate a constantly negative image of disability.
The first is the pity frame. The headline, like a “Blind person clears UPSC,” is well-intentioned, however, it views disability as an essentially tragic characteristic. The success of the individual lies in passing one of the most challenging tests in the world, which becomes a side note to his disability. The readers first come to the emotional hook and only then to the factual context. Disability overshadows achievement, even in tales that are supposed to glorify it.
The second is inspiration porn. It is a phrase created by the late disability activist Stella Young. Inspiration porn is not the opposite of the pity frame; rather, both are two sides of the same coin. Where the former portrays disabled individuals as powerless, and the latter portrays them as superhumans. Whenever a wheelchair user is applauded simply because he/she got out of bed and went to work, or when a deaf athlete is said to be “defying all odds” to compete in a sport, the connotation remains the same: a disabled person who is leading an ordinary life is extraordinary. The framing exploits the life of disabled individuals as a means to provide emotional satisfaction to a non-disabled audience, and does not provide any benefit to the disabled individual.
A Constitutional Argument
This is not solely a matter of editorial sensibility or narrative. It has a direct constitutional connotation.
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution outlaws discrimination and offers equality and dignity to all citizens, although disability is not spelled out specifically. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life,[AS3] which has been construed by the Supreme Court to include the right to live with dignity, recognising individuals with disabilities as human beings.[AS4]
When news captions only refer to the person with their condition, when humor sketches are used to ridicule speech impediments, when movies use disability as a way of creating sympathy with an able character, these are not objective creative choices. These decisions undermine personal dignity. They also support cultural attitudes that help to ignore legal protections that exist on paper, since law is not applied in a vacuum, and discriminatory representation creates an atmosphere in which rights can be easily ignored.
The[AS5] judiciary has finally begun to respond after years of advocacy. The courts have provided guidance stating that people with disabilities should be portrayed with dignity, that stereotypes are unacceptable, and that portraying the life of a person as a spectacle is a form of disrespect to the fundamental rights of such persons. This includes the usage of derogatory language like “crippled”, as it shows disabled people as helpless, which sounds very insulting. These depictions have been deemed to be inconsistent with the worthy depiction.
The most significant case that influenced this discussion was Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Networks India.” in which the Supreme Court acknowledged the potential of visual media to shape societal attitudes and underscored the need for creators to be sensitive to the rights and lived realities of persons with disabilities and provided a guideline:
1. Avoidance of derogatory language and stereotypical portrayals.
2. Inclusion of advisory experts on disability in the CBFC.
3. Training programs for filmmakers to foster inclusive representation.
The Global Standard India Must Meet
During the 2024 Paris Paralympics, UNESCO urged media organisations across the globe to shift their narratives of suffering and hardship to those that foreground excellence in athletics, capacity, and complete humanity. It also called on media organizations to hire disabled journalists and consultants to substantive positions, not as a token, but as a structural commitment to telling the truth.
The principle states that communities must participate in shaping their own representation. In the context of newsrooms and production houses, “Nothing About Us Without Us” depicts that disability reporting must be influenced, at least to some degree, by disabled reporters. The depictions of disability have to be informed by those who have experienced it.
The Gap Between Policy and Practice
India has constructed a meaningful legal framework: the RPwD Act, the constitutional protections under Articles 15 and 21, and the Supreme Court guidelines represent a serious commitment to equality for disabled people. That commitment is redeemed only when law becomes practice and policy becomes a cultural norm.
In terms of media, it means hiring people for main roles in films that are not about disability; training journalists to use language that is kind to disabled people; making content accessible through captions, audio descriptions, and sign language; and asking at every stage of production if what is being shown respects the disabled person.
None of this is radical. It is the moral standard that experts have suggested. The media acts as a mirror to society; it not only shows but also shapes public opinion. For example, George Gerbner’s cultivation theory[AS6] says that the media affects how people think and perceive their reality around what is shown by media. When a disabled person is shown as someone to feel sorry for, people learn to treat them with pity. When a disabled person is made fun of, people think it is okay to make fun of them. When a disabled person is shown as a person with the same strengths, weaknesses, and abilities as anyone else, society moves closer to accepting that humanity in law and, in life
Conclusion
Disability advocacy in India has grown into a significant and vocal movement, but visibility is not the same as accuracy, and public attention is not the same as inclusion. High-profile representation that perpetuates pity, inspiration porn, or erasure is not progress; it is the same harm delivered with greater reach. The media must go beyond simply noticing disabled people. It must provide factually accurate, credible representations, draw on disabled people’s own voices and experiences to tell those stories, and stop treating disabled lives as raw material for the emotional journeys of non-disabled audiences.
Leave a Reply