Delhi High Court Champions Inclusive Screens: Directives for Disability-Friendly Films

In a landmark push for cinematic equality, the Delhi High Court has ordered key government bodies to fast-track accessibility features in movies, ensuring persons with disabilities aren't left in the dark—literally. Justice Purushaindr Kumar Kaurav , hearing a petition by visually impaired lawyer-activist Rahul Bajaj , directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) , Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) , and Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to implement detailed suggestions or explain why not. The case spotlights the blockbuster Pushpa 2: The Rule , produced by Mythri Movie Makers , which allegedly skipped vital aids like audio descriptions.

From Blockbuster Hype to Accessibility Blindspot

Rahul Bajaj, blind since birth and a vocal disability rights advocate, filed W.P.(C) 16833/2024 in person, urging the court to enforce March 2024 guidelines from MIB on accessibility in cinema exhibitions. These align with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016 . Bajaj targeted Pushpa 2 's release without audio description (AD), same-language closed captioning (CC), or Indian Sign Language (ISL) across theaters, OTT platforms, and beyond.

The petition stemmed from systemic gaps: disabled viewers often book tickets blindly, unaware if features like AD—narrating visuals for the blind—or CC for the deaf are available. Bajaj highlighted no central database tracks compliant films, no app info for accessing embedded features, and inaccessible ticketing platforms. He sought fines of ₹1 lakh each on respondents, litigation costs, and broader mandates like CBFC website disclosures.

Petitioner's Blueprint for Change vs. Silent Screens

Bajaj's written submissions painted a vivid picture of exclusion. Key grievances: - No mechanism to identify accessible films pre-booking. - Missing details on apps/hardware for features in digital cinema packages. - Lack of technical support contacts. - Non-compliant ticketing apps, falling under MeitY's nodal role per Allocation of Business Rules and RPWD Rules, 2017 . - Vague MIB benchmarks for software delivering features. - CBFC laxity on Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 , accepting English captions over same-language ones essential for Indian audiences.

Respondents, including Mythri Movie Makers (No.1), unnamed No.2 (likely exhibitors), and CBFC (No.3), offered no appearance, leaving Bajaj's tabulated suggestions unchallenged. These linked fixes to specific rules, like Rule 22(4)(d) mandating same-language features and Indian Standard 17802 for support info.

Decoding the Legal Lens: Guidelines Meet Ground Reality

The court parsed Bajaj's proposals through existing frameworks—no new precedents cited, but heavy reliance on statutory mandates. Clauses 1.2, 6.3, 8.1 of MIB's Film Guidelines demand info dissemination and universal access. Rule 15(2) RPWD Rules tasks MeitY with tech compliance, including apps. Justice Kaurav allocated duties: MIB for info/tech standards (paras 6.1-6.3, 6.5), MeitY for apps (6.4), CBFC for certification tweaks (6.6-6.8).

This builds on RPWD Act's Section 89 penalty provisions, though not yet invoked. The order underscores policy enforcement over ad-hoc relief, distinguishing certification (pre-release) from exhibition (theaters/OTT), ensuring "regular shows" aren't exempt.

Key Observations from the Bench

"It is thus seen that the suggestions, so far as continuing in Paragraph No.6.1 to 6.3 and 6.5 are concerned it will have to be implemented by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting."

"The respondent No.3-The Central Board of Film Certification will have to consider the suggestions contained in Paragraph no. 6.1 to 6.8."

"In view thereof let all the aforesaid respondents/stakeholders to implement the suggestions given by the petitioner with due expedition."

"If for any reason any of the suggestion is not implemented, let the specific reason be assigned by way of an affidavit of the Competent Authority."

A Directive with Reels to Roll: Implementation or Explain

The court issued no immediate fines or Pushpa 2 -specific orders but mandated "due expedition" on all suggestions, with affidavits if stalled. Next hearing: May 7, 2026 . Implications? Theaters must equip for universal access, CBFC databases will flag features, ticketing apps face pre-launch audits—potentially transforming India's ₹200 crore+ cinema industry into an inclusive space.

For disabled viewers like Bajaj, it's a ticket to informed choices. Future releases could standardize AD/CC, curbing violations under RPWD Act. As other sources note, this responds to Bajaj's long advocacy, signaling courts' role in bridging policy to practice.