Derogatory Language and Disability

**Rafa Khan & Sandhyashree Karanth

Public figures hold immense power in shaping societal attitudes, and when they act insensitively, the impact can be deeply damaging. 

What begins as a joke can often end as an injury, an unseen one that cuts deep into dignity. In India’s fast-moving online culture, humour travels faster than empathy, and words meant for “entertainment” can quietly normalise discrimination. For persons with disabilities (PWDs), this is not new. Mocking gestures, slurs disguised as banter, and careless portrayals in media have long turned disability into a punchline. Even as India’s legal framework recognises equality and inclusion through the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, social attitudes have been slower to evolve. The rise of digital platforms has amplified the reach of such derogatory content, making it not just a question of taste, but of accountability. Each like, share, or retweet of such mockery reinforces the idea that it’s acceptable to laugh at rather than with someone who is different. And it’s in this troubling context that recent incidents have drawn judicial attention, forcing the question of where humour ends and harm begins.

The Supreme Court of India had summoned comedian Samay Raina and four other social media influencers to appear in court over allegations of mocking individuals with disabilities, particularly those affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), on the YouTube show India’s Got Latent. The court described the content as “damaging” and “demoralising,” emphasizing that freedom of speech does not justify demeaning vulnerable groups.

In the past, three of India’s former cricket stars sparked a controversy after they shared a video on social media, meant to celebrate their victory in the World Championship of Legends. In the video, they humorously mimicked physical exhaustion by limping and holding their backs. The video quickly drew sharp criticism from disability rights advocates accusing the cricketers of mocking persons with disabilities.

National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), a Delhi-based organisation, working for the rights of persons with disabilities, had filed a complaint against the cricketers under Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act). The complaint alleges that their actions were an “insult” to the disabled community. It also highlighted that Instagram, the platform where the video was shared, allowed content that violates the dignity of individuals. Further, Tick-talk had faced backlashwhen a video of people mocking persons with disabilities was shared over it. Another incident reveals that the guidelines do not seem to have the required deterrent effect. Mr. Ram Kumar Gautam, a candidate from the Bhartiya Janata Party, was seen using the derogatory term, langda, which translates to limping in English, in one of his campaign videos. Such a political climate is reflective of the troubling social tendency that trivializes the mocking of persons with disabilities.

Disability Derogation: Social and Political Apathy

The use of offensive speech, particularly targeting a particular community, including casual mockery and derogatory language not only reflect but reinforce systemic prejudice, highlighting an urgent need for greater awareness, legal enforcement, and respect for the dignity of all individuals. The pervasiveness of the use of such language in our public discourse reveal a recurring social pattern of dismissive attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Indian political leaders, including the current Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, have repeatedly used derogatory language involving persons with disabilities to indicate the weakness of their political opponents. To discourage such incidents, the Election Commission of India had to come out with guidelines to “nudge political parties towards respectful discourse for persons with disabilities”. 

Pertinent to note here is that India continues to use ‘Divyangjan’ literally meaning ‘persons with divine bodies’ as an official term to refer to persons with disabilities. Members of the disability community have expressed serious opposition regarding the usage of this term because of its dehumanizing context. An ‘official’ mark of identity that has come to be perceived as an insult by persons with disabilities has continued in use despite the concerns expressed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), referring to the same as ‘derogatory’. This issue therefore is much more serious than a failed attempt towards mockery by our respectful cricketers but warrants a serious discussion about the social and legal implications of such incidents. 

Disablist Derogation: Social Implications 

Social issues that are associated with the abuse/bullying of disabled people include- wider patterns of devaluation, marginalization and othering of disabled people; social and economic rewards for conformity and ‘normality’ and prejudices against difference and disability. The social isolation, segregation, and lack of support and safeguards experienced by many disabled people is also an issue.  Additionally, social practices that reward bullying, institutional cultures that cover-up abuse and gendered inequalities which place disabled women and girls at higher risk of certain types of abuse. 

The affective dimensions of Othering often involve contempt, disgust, and loathing. Othering invokes a sense of superiority/inferiority, insiderness/outsiderness, respect/contempt, inclusion/exclusion, domination/subordination, and acceptance/ rejection. The differences between insiders and outsiders are exaggerated; insiders are framed as homogenous (and safe) whereas outsiders are considered different, incompatible, and threatening. In the use of offensive language, the Other is always the one looked at with contempt or feelings of inferiority rendering the Other feel excluded and rejected.

Disability insults are a pervasive and harmful form of verbal abuse that devalues and marginalizes disabled individuals,reinforcing feelings of inferiority and exclusion while emphasizing their differences from the perceived normal majority. Terms like “Langda”, “retard”, “Behra”,  “Andha” have evolved from medical diagnoses into derogatory slurs, reinforcing negative stereotypes about disability. These insults reflect societal perceptions that equate disability with inferiority or abnormality. For instance the use of the term “midget” in English and “Bauna” or “Chotu” in Hindi can be seen as a dehumanizing insult, especially towards people with dwarfism. Such language not only perpetuates ableism but also inflicts significant psychological harm, contributing to the broader exclusion of disabled individuals from society. The normalization of these insults in everyday language underscores the urgent need for greater awareness and legal protections. 

Disability Derogation: Legal Implications 

Exploring the legal consequences of the act, Section 92 (a) of the RPwD Act provides for punishment for atrocities. It penalizes the act of “intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a person with a disability in any place within public view,”. The video in question involves the cricketers performing a dance while limping, which some have interpreted as mocking people with disabilities. However, they claim that their actions were not meant to insult or mock persons with disabilities but were an expression of physical exhaustion from playing cricket. The element of mens rea, which includes not just direct intent but also knowledge, applies here. While the cricketers may claim their actions reflected their sore bodies, they knew the video would reach millions, including persons with disabilities, making the impact foreseeable. The fact that it was widely circulated on social media reinforces that their actions were in “public view” under Section 92(a). Their limping and holding their backs could be seen as mimicking disabilities, and even if no ill intent was intended, many, including disability rights groups, viewed it as mockery. Given that mens rea can include knowledge of probable consequences, the law may interpret their actions as intentionally humiliating persons with disabilities, even if they claim otherwise.

Disability ethics revolves around the principles of autonomy, dignity, and equality for persons with disabilities. These ethical principles demand that society recognizes and respects the inherent dignity of all individuals, regardless of their physical or mental abilities. Ethical treatment of persons with disabilities involves not just avoiding harm but actively promoting their well-being and full participation in society. The actions of the cricketers can be viewed through the lens of disability ethics. By portraying physical disabilities as a source of humor, the cricketers inadvertently perpetuated a narrative that devalues the lives and experiences of persons with disabilities. This kind of representation is ethically problematic because it contributes to the social stigma that persons with disabilities already face. While the video may not constitute direct physical abuse, it can be argued that it represents a form of psychological and social abuse by reinforcing negative stereotypes and contributing to a hostile environment for persons with disabilities. The cricketers’ actions, whether intended or not, could be seen as a violation of the ethical obligation to treat all individuals with respect and dignity.

Law and Reality

The continued mockery and mistreatment of persons with disabilities often stem from one simple cause, ignorance of the law meant to protect them. A striking example comes from the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Basavanand Swamigalu v. State of Karnataka. In this case, visually challenged invoked Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, alleging that he had been subjected to intentional insult and humiliation — offences that are cognizable under the Act. Yet, the police dismissed his complaint, wrongly suggesting that his only option was to file a defamation suit. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, sitting as a single-judge bench, firmly set the record straight: the RPwD Act is not a toothless statute, and complaints under it cannot be brushed aside as mere defamation claims. Quashing the police’s rejection, the Court directed the registration of an FIR and emphasized that the law must be implemented in both letter and spirit. 

While there are laws protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, the gap in the effective implementation and awareness of the law, contributes to the absence of any social change in this matter, and this in turn makes crimes against persons with disabilities- “invisible”, as the society often fails to see these crimes as important. Lack of data around disability contributes not only to the invisibility of people with disabilities but also to the ineffective or inappropriate emergency responses. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not provide disaggregated data on persons with disabilities in its report, and this has raised concerns.  In addition, it is estimated that 71% of crimes committed against people with severe intellectual disability go unreported. When it is reported, it is claimed that people with disabilities are less likely to receive police intervention, legal protection, or preventative services. This failure not only marginalizes people with disabilities but also fails to respect their dignity as human beings.

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Pvt. Ltd. (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 439) stands as the locus classicus on the sensitive portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual and electronic media. In this case, disability rights activist Nipun Malhotra challenged the insensitive depiction of PwDs in the film Aankh Micholi, urging the Court to issue guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, drew a sharp and much-needed distinction between disability humour and disabling humour. The Court observed that while disability humour can serve as a powerful means of self-expression and awareness, using wit to humanize disability and challenge stereotypes. Disabling humour demeans, mocks, and entrenches prejudice. The judgment reframed humour within the social model of disability, recognizing that disability arises not from an individual’s impairment but from societal barriers and ignorance. This decision marked a turning point in Indian disability jurisprudence, establishing ethical and representational standards for media creators while protecting the lived dignity of PwDs.

Complementing the judicial stance in Nipun Malhotra, the Supreme Court’s Handbook on Combating Stereotypes Against Persons with Disabilities, provides essential linguistic and attitudinal guidance to ensure inclusivity in law and society. Launched under the leadership of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the handbook addresses deep-rooted biases and derogatory language, terms like “crippled” or “spastic” that have historically dehumanized persons with disabilities. It advocates for a people-first approach (for example, “person with a disability” instead of “disabled person”, while also acknowledging the evolving preference among many for identity-first language. More than a guide on terminology, it is a moral framework that urges judges, lawyers, and citizens alike to use language that affirms dignity rather than reinforces exclusion. This initiative underscores a crucial truth: language is not neutral, it shapes perception, constructs power, and can either entrench or dismantle discrimination, thus signaling a cultural shift towards empathy and equity, urging the society to see disability not as a punchline or a pity narrative, but as part of the diverse human experience deserving of respect and representation.

Conclusion

Representations in media are not just harmless jokes; they perpetuate a culture of exclusion and disrespect, undermining the dignity and rights of persons with disabilities. The media, including social media platforms, plays a critical role in shaping societal attitudes toward disability. When public figures, especially those as influential as Ram Kumar Gautam, Harbhajan Singh, Yuvraj Singh, and Suresh Raina, engage in behavior that can be interpreted as mocking, they are not just making a joke- they are perhaps unknowingly, perpetuating the harmful narratives which may undermine the dignity of persons with disabilities. 

The cricketers’ actions are deeply troubling. Ethical treatment of individuals with disabilities involves more than avoiding harm, it requires actively fostering an inclusive and respectful society. By using disabilities as a source of humor, the cricketers perpetuate a culture that devalues people with disabilities, reinforcing stigma and hindering their recognition as equal members with full rights and dignity. This incident underscores the need for disability ethics to shape both legal standards and societal attitudes. Public figures must promote respect, not ridicule, to build a truly inclusive society.

**Rafa Khan M F and Sandhyashree Karanth, students of law at RV University, Bengaluru

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.