LEGAL ISSUE: Whether color blindness can be a valid ground for denying admission to film and television courses.
CASE TYPE: Education/Disability Rights
Case Name: Ashutosh Kumar vs. The Film and Television Institute of India & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: April 12, 2022
Date of the Judgment: April 12, 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No.7719/2021
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a premier film institute deny admission to a candidate solely based on color blindness? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity and reasonable accommodation in educational settings. The Court considered whether color blindness should be a bar to pursuing a diploma in editing at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Kaul.
Case Background
The appellant, Ashutosh Kumar, applied for a Diploma in Editing at the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune. However, his application was rejected due to his color blindness. The FTII prospectus stated that individuals with color blindness were ineligible for certain courses, including editing. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the matter reaching the Supreme Court of India. The Court, instead of making an immediate decision, formed a committee to examine the issue of color blindness in relation to various film courses.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to 30.11.2021 | Appellant applies for Diploma in Editing at FTII, Pune. |
| Prior to 30.11.2021 | Appellant’s application rejected due to color blindness. |
| 30.11.2021 | Supreme Court passes an order regarding color blindness and its impact on film courses. |
| 30.11.2021 | Supreme Court forms a committee to examine the issue. |
| 18.02.2022 | Supreme Court orders AIIMS to examine the appellant to ascertain the nature and extent of his color vision deficiency. |
| 08.03.2022 | AIIMS submits report stating the appellant has “red and green color vision deficiency” with a color perception of CP4. |
| Prior to 12.04.2022 | Committee submits its report to the Supreme Court. |
| 12.04.2022 | Supreme Court delivers judgment based on the committee’s report. |
Arguments
The appellant argued that his color blindness should not be a barrier to pursuing a career in film editing, emphasizing that film is a collaborative art form and any limitations can be overcome with reasonable accommodation. He also relied on the principle of “reasonable accommodation” as enunciated in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 370] and Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors. [(2017) 13 SCC 351], arguing that he should be given admission by increasing the strength of the course by one person.
The Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) contended that the syllabus for the Diploma in Editing was carefully designed by experts and approved by the academic and governing councils. They argued that the color grading module was an essential part of the curriculum and that allowing color-blind individuals would compromise the quality of education. FTII also stated that they have already accommodated color-blind students in 5 out of 11 courses.
| Submissions | Appellant’s Arguments | FTII’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Main Submission 1: Color Blindness as a Bar | ✓ Color blindness should not be a barrier to film education. ✓ Film is a collaborative art form where limitations can be overcome. ✓ Reasonable accommodation should be provided. |
✓ Color grading is an essential part of the editing curriculum. ✓ Syllabus was designed by experts and should not be altered. ✓ Accommodations have already been made in some courses. |
| Main Submission 2: Reasonable Accommodation | ✓ The appellant should be accommodated in the next academic year by increasing the strength of the course by one person. ✓ Relied on Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 370] and Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors. [(2017) 13 SCC 351]. |
✓ The existing syllabus is comprehensive and cannot be changed. ✓ The institute has already accommodated color-blind students in some courses. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the course curriculum provided for a diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by the appellant who suffers from color blindness?
- 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.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the course curriculum provided for a diploma in Editing can be successfully completed by the appellant who suffers from color blindness? | The Court agreed with the committee’s majority view that while the appellant might face difficulty with the color grading module, this module is not essential for a film editor’s role and can be made elective. |
| 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. | The Court endorsed the committee’s recommendation that individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll in all courses offered by FTII, with reasonable accommodations made in the curriculum. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Report of the AIIMS | The report confirmed that the appellant had “red and green color vision deficiency” with a color perception of CP4. This was used to understand the nature of the appellant’s color blindness. |
| Responses from International Film Institutes | Responses from CalArts and other international film institutes indicated that they provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities, including color blindness. This was used to support the argument for inclusivity. |
| Expert Opinions from the Committee | The committee’s report, which included opinions from film directors, colorists, editors, and an ophthalmologist, was crucial in the Court’s decision. The majority opinion of the committee was adopted by the Court. |
| Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 370], Supreme Court of India | The Court considered the principle of “reasonable accommodation” as enunciated in this case. |
| Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors. [(2017) 13 SCC 351], Supreme Court of India | The Court considered the principle of “reasonable accommodation” as enunciated in this case. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that color blindness should not be a barrier to film education. | The Court agreed with this submission, emphasizing the collaborative nature of filmmaking and the possibility of reasonable accommodation. |
| Appellant’s submission relying on the principle of “reasonable accommodation” as enunciated in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 370] and Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors. [(2017) 13 SCC 351]. | The Court found merit in this submission and noted that the appellant should be accommodated in the next academic year by increasing the strength of the course by one person. |
| FTII’s submission that the syllabus was designed by experts and should not be altered. | The Court acknowledged the expertise but emphasized that inclusivity and reasonable accommodation are paramount. The Court did not agree with the FTII’s submission. |
| FTII’s submission that the color grading module is essential to the curriculum. | The Court rejected this submission, agreeing with the committee’s finding that the color grading module has no relevance to the role of a professional Film Editor and can be made elective. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The AIIMS report was used to understand the appellant’s specific condition.
✓ The responses from international film institutes supported the Court’s view on inclusivity and reasonable accommodation.
✓ The expert opinions of the Committee were largely adopted, except for the dissenting view of Mr. K. Rajasekaran, HOD Editing, FTII.
✓ The principle of “reasonable accommodation” as enunciated in Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 370] and Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors. [(2017) 13 SCC 351] was relied upon by the Court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principles of inclusivity and the collaborative nature of filmmaking. The Court emphasized that creative talent should not be restricted by physical limitations, especially when reasonable accommodations can be made. The Court also found that the color grading module, which was the primary reason for excluding color-blind individuals, was not essential to the role of a film editor. The Court noted that film editing is about assembling shots into a coherent sequence, and color correction is the role of a specialized professional called a colorist.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inclusivity and Diversity | 30% |
| Collaborative Nature of Filmmaking | 25% |
| Irrelevance of Color Grading for Film Editors | 20% |
| Reasonable Accommodation | 15% |
| Overcoming Limitations | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, the expert opinions of the committee, and the legal principles of reasonable accommodation. The Court’s emphasis on the collaborative nature of filmmaking and the irrelevance of the color grading module for film editors shows that the court was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case.
The Court considered the argument that the syllabus was designed by experts, but it emphasized that inclusivity and reasonable accommodation are paramount. The Court stated, “The theme which permeates the report of the Committee is based on an appreciation of art and culture, of innovation, intuitiveness, unrestricted by impediments which can be overcome with assistance.” The Court also noted that, “Film editing is the art, technique and practice of assembling shots into a coherent sequence and the job of an Editor is not simply to mechanically put piece of a film together… The Film Editor must creatively work with the layers of images, story, dialogue, music, pacing as well as the actors performances to effectively “reimagine” and even re-write the film to craft a cohesive whole.” The Court further observed, “We find ourselves wholeheartedly in agreement with the majority view of the Committee and thus, opine that the same is required to be adopted by the FTII in its curriculum.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll in all courses offered by FTII.
- ✓ FTII should make reasonable accommodations in its curriculum for candidates with color blindness.
- ✓ The color grading module in the Diploma in Film Editing course should be excluded or made elective.
- ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and diversity in film education.
- ✓ The Court recognized that film is a collaborative art form and limitations can be overcome with assistance.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the FTII to:
- ✓ Permit individuals with color blindness to enroll in all courses.
- ✓ Make reasonable accommodations in their curriculum for candidates with color blindness.
- ✓ Exclude or make elective the color grading module in the Diploma in Film Editing course.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a significant development in the law by emphasizing inclusivity and reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities in educational settings. The ratio decidendi of the case is that color blindness should not be a bar to admission in film and television courses, and educational institutions must make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashutosh Kumar vs. The Film and Television Institute of India & Anr. is a landmark decision that promotes inclusivity and reasonable accommodation in film education. The Court held that color blindness should not be a bar to admission in film and television courses, and educational institutions must make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. The Court adopted the majority view of the committee, directing FTII to permit color-blind individuals to enroll in all courses and to make necessary changes in the curriculum.
Category:
Parent Category: Disability Rights
Child Category: Reasonable Accommodation
Parent Category: Education Law
Child Category: Film and Television Institute of India
Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Category: Article 14, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: Can a person with color blindness now apply to all courses at FTII?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has directed that individuals with color blindness should be permitted to enroll in all courses offered by FTII.
Q: What is “reasonable accommodation” in the context of this judgment?
A: Reasonable accommodation refers to the adjustments made by the educational institution to ensure that students with disabilities can participate fully in the course. In this case, it includes making the color grading module elective or excluding it.
Q: Does this judgment apply to other educational institutions?
A: The Supreme Court has opined that if there are other institutes carrying on a similar educational curriculum, they would also be required to adhere to the discussion on this subject as forms the conclusion of the Committee.
Q: What if a color-blind student faces difficulties in a course?
A: The judgment emphasizes that film is a collaborative art form, and any limitations can be overcome with assistance. The FTII is expected to provide support and accommodations to such students.
Q: What is the significance of the 20-minute color grading module?
A: The 20-minute color grading module was a point of contention. The committee and the Court found that it was not essential for the role of a film editor and could be made elective, thereby removing the barrier for color-blind students.
Source: Ashutosh Kumar vs. FTII