1. Exclusion of a candidate from a film editing diploma course due to color blindness — challenge to medical eligibility criteria for admission. (Para 3 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Ashutosh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Film And Television Institute of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7719 of 2021
Decided On : 12-04-2022
Important Points
The Court ruled that color blindness cannot be a disqualification for admission to any course at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). Emphasizing inclusivity and reasonable accommodation, it held that such limitations can be overcome through assistance, ensuring creative talent is not excluded from artistic education.
Subject
Education Law - Admission and Curriculum Policies
Act Referred
Headnote
Art - Colour Blindness - Film and Television Institute of India, Pune - [The Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Section 5A(1)(a), The Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 14(a)(ii), The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 3(1)(i)]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a fundamental question where a person who is colour blind is excluded from pursuing a course for Diploma in Editing in the Films and Television Institute of India, Pune. The court formed a committee to look into the issue and connected issues, and the report of the committee recommended that individuals with colour blindness should be permitted to enroll for all courses offered by the institute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 20-minute colour grading module in the existing Diploma in Film Editing course curriculum was irrelevant to the film editing course and the film editor's professional role. The court opined that the FTII should make accommodation in their curriculum for candidates with colour blindness and exclude or make elective the obstructive element of the colour grading module.
Issues: The issues included whether the course curriculum provided for diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by a person with colour blindness and whether individuals with colour blindness should be permitted to enroll for all courses offered by FTII.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the committee's report, which highlighted the need for reasonable accommodation for candidates with colour blindness and the irrelevance of the colour grading module to the film editing course. The court emphasized the importance of inclusivity and the enrichment of the creative art form by introducing variety, and it rejected the status quo approach of the institute's expert, advocating for a broader conspectus of appreciation of the art forms.
Final Decision: The court adopted the majority view of the committee and opined that the same is required to be adopted by the FTII in its curriculum. It also directed the institute to file a response within two weeks to find a solution for accommodating the candidate in the next academic year.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Olivia Bang, Advocate, Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocate, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate, Mr. Mohd. Ovais, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Telang, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Chava, Advocate, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Olivia Bang, Advocate, Mr. Satya Mitra, Advocate, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate, Mr. Mohd. Ovais, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Jha, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Telang, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Chava, Advocate, Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate, Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Whether color blindness is a valid impediment to pursuing film editing versus the requirement for inclusivity and reasonable accommodation in creative arts. (Para 3 , 29 , 30 )
3. Art is collaborative and non-conformist; technical deficiencies like color blindness can be mitigated through assistance and reasonable accommodation without hindering professional competence. (Para 2 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 24 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Medical conditions that do not fundamentally obstruct the core creative essence of a profession should not serve as absolute bars to educational admission. (Para 15 , 22 , 35 )
5. Directions to remove color blindness as an admission bar and make obstructive curriculum modules elective or excluded to ensure inclusivity. (Para 27 , 35 )
6. Should color blindness be a disqualification for admission to film and television courses?
No. Film and television are collaborative arts. Restricting entry based on color blindness sacrifices creative talent. Any limitations can be overcome through reasonable accommodation or assistance from other professionals. (Para 15 , 22 )
7. Does a specific technical module justify a blanket ban on color-blind candidates in professional courses?
No. If a module has no direct relevance to the professional role of the practitioner or is a negligible part of the curriculum, it should be made elective or excluded to ensure inclusivity. (Para 16 , 20 , 26 , 36 )
8. What is the principle of reasonable accommodation for students with sensory limitations in professional education?
Institutions should provide necessary adjustments—such as elective modules or assistant support—to enable students with physical or sensory limitations to complete their courses without compromising core learning objectives. (Para 15 , 22 , 26 )
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. - The art is non-conformist in character!
We are reminded of Edgar Degas' poignant observation that "Art is not what you see, but what you make others see."
2. The respondent Institute is a premier Institute and one would expect it to encourage a liberal thought process and not put courses connected with films in any conformists' box. It is this thought process which made us pass the order on 30.11.2021 dealing with the aspect of colour blindness. We had sketched out that the colour blindness is not a form of blindness at all but a deficiency in the way you see colour. This medical condition makes it difficult to distinguish certain colours such as blue and yellow or red and green, and an estimated eight percent of the male population and less than one per cent of the female population have red and green colour deficiency, being the most common form of colour blindness.
3. The Us which has arisen before us is from a fundamental question where a person who is colour blind is excluded from pursuing a course for Diploma in Editing in the Films and Television Institute of India, Pune(FTII)/respondent No.1. It is not necessary for us to get into the depth of the facts which already stand noticed in the aforementioned order or the respective submissions of the counsels made on that date. Suffice to say that instead of taking a call itself on whether colour blindness would be an aspect which would be an impediment in going through the course, we found it appropriate to form a committee to look into the issue and connected issues. On suggestions from counsels for parties and our own path of discovery, we constituted a Committee of the following:-
| "(i) | Film Director | Mr. Ravi K Chandran |
| (ii) | Colourist- | Mr. Swapnil Patole |
| (iii) | Script | Ms. Shubha Ramachandra Supervisor |
| (iv) | Film Editor | Mr. Akkineni Sreekar Prasad |
| (v) | Course Creator/ | Mr. Rajasekharan HOD, Editing |
| (vi) | Ophthalmologist | Dr. Jignesh Taswala |
| (vii) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Advocate who was the counsel in the Committee appointed in Praney Kumar Poddar vs. State of Tripura & Ors. (2017) 13 SCC 351." | ||
4. We put a caveat at the inception itself that in view of the passage of time of almost six years, the respondent would have to go through the rigors of the process of a selection anew, but dependent on the fate of the order to be passed on consideration of the report of the Committee, it had the potentiality to remove the impediment in the future on account of colour blindness, if the Committee so opined.
5. We also considered appropriate to facilitate a more comprehensive exercise by the Committee to opine on the aspect of colour blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification.
6. The report of the Committee has been placed before us. It is signed by all THE members except one i.e. Mr. K. Rajasekaran, HOD Editing, FTII who had some caveats which we will consider after noticing the report of the Committee.
7. The Committee rightly framed the two issues on which the opinion of the Committee was sought as under:
"i. Whether the course curriculum provided for diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by the appellant who suffers from color blindness?
ii. To facilitate a more comprehensive exercise, the role of the committee would be to opine on the aspect of color blindness qua all the courses for which it is perceived as a disqualification."
KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSIONS
8. The Committee held about eight online meetings. With a view to inform itself of the practice of admission of colour blind individuals prevalent in premier international institutes, it short listed and wrote to ten top international film and television institutes, it but responses were received only from two of them. In the course of deliberations of the Committee, it was found that the appellant had not been examined by the an expert Ophthalmologist to ascertain the nature and ext
