On January 16, 2023, the Delhi High Court directed Pathaan’s producer, Yash Raj Films (YRF), to prepare “audio descriptions, closed captioning, and subtitles” in Hindi for the hearing and visually impaired people for the film’s release on Amazon Prime Video. Responding to a plea moved by four individuals—a law student, two lawyers, and Executive Director of the National Association for the Deaf—the Court said their petitions raised “very important issues” regarding the hearing and visually impaired people’s “accessibility to various modes” of entertainment. “Section 42 of the Rights of Persons with Disability [RPWD] Act, 2016 shows that,” it added, “the Government has an obligation to take measures to ensure that all content is available in formats accessible to persons with disabilities.”

The petitioners had also stated that even though the RPWD Act recognises different rights for persons with disabilities, most films releasing in India did “not cater to disabled persons despite” the enactment of the “statute” over “five to six years ago”. Answering a specific query by the Court, a petitioner, advocate Rahul Bajaj, submitted that in “certain foreign countries, the theatres themselves make provisions for headphones to be plugged into the seats in the theatre”, which allow access to audio descriptions. Not in India though. Despite such restriction, added Bajaj, visually impaired people could still enjoy the audio descriptions of films through “mobile applications on smartphones”—such as XL Cinema and Shazacin—if the producer, tying up with them, provided audio descriptions.?

By the next hearing, on April 6, YRF had provided the subtitles, closed captions, and audio descriptions. But wanting to find an overall solution to the problem, Justice Prathiba M Singh directed the union government to consult with film producers, OTT platforms, television channels, theatre owners and disabled people’s associations to ensure that other movies, too, are made accessible to visually and hearing impaired people. Singh ordered the government to conclude the discussions by August 15, saying its “drafted guidelines could be placed before the court”.

Next month, in May, the Central Board of Film Certification, under the aegis of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, invited “sealed Expression of Interest” from different consulting parties for “providing advanced technology solutions for accessibility in films for persons with disabilities”. Agreeing with the plea, and citing the RPWD Act, it noted that “people with disabilities in India are unable to enjoy recreational activities of media and entertainment due to physical challenges in vision, hearing, or comprehension, resulting in their exclusion”.

In late September, however, something unprecedented happened: even the Delhi High Court looked inwards. Sharing the podium with the judge, two sign-language interpreters translated the case’s proceedings to the hearing impaired persons in the court. Singh’s single-judge bench also said that, “In the future, sign-language interpreters will be available for all hearings.” She also commented on the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s status report, stating the film industry “would have to show more sensitivity towards persons with disabilities” considering the Act’s provisions. “Under Section 42,” she explained, “making available tools for providing access to information and communication technology is mandatory in law and not providing the same would also constitute offences under sections 89 and 90 of the Act.”

The High Court also said that the ministry would publicise today’s order on its website—the next hearing is on November 2—so that “any other stakeholder” could also participate and asked the ministry’s Joint Secretary to be present for it. “The purpose of directing stakeholder consultation was to ensure that concerns of all stakeholders are addressed before mandatory guidelines are issued by the ministry,” said the Delhi High Court, issuing notices to the CBFC, Film Federation of India, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, and film theatres association. “However, it appears that some of the parties have expressed concerns which, in the opinion of the court, are not valid.”