ASHUTOSH KUMAR versus THE FILM AND TELEVISION INSTITUTE OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1094 · Decided: 12-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
v.
THE FILM AND TELEVISION INSTITUTE OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7719 of 2021)
APRIL 12, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Admission – Disability –
Color Blindness –Diploma course in Editing in the Films and
Television Institute of India – Appellant, colour blind person
excluded from pursuing a course for Diploma in Editing in the Films
and Television Institute of India, Pune(FTII) – Previous order by
this Court that the appellant has to go through the process of
selection de novo due to his color blindness – Appellant relying on
the principle of reasonable accommodation, tried to persuade this
Court to revisit its earlier observations – Thereafter, constitution of
an expert Committee to opine on the aspect of colour blindness as a
disqualification for admission in various courses – Recommendation
by the Committee that individuals with color blindness should be
permitted to enroll ‘for all courses’ offered by FTII and the color
grading module in the existing Diploma in Film Editing Course
curriculum, should either be excluded or made elective – Accepting
the majority opinion of the Committee, it is held that the individuals
with color blindness are required to be adopted by the FTII in its
curriculum – Said direction would also be applicable to other
film and television institutes following a similar educational
curriculum – However, due to the passage of time and the earlier
order passed by the Court, no relief could be granted to the
appellant.
Maqbool Fida Hussain v. Rajkumar Pandey & Ors.,
(2008) SCC Online Del 562; Vikash Kumar v. Union
Public Service Commission & Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 370;
Pranay Kumar Poddar v. State of Tripura & Ors., (2017)
13 SCC 351: [2017] 2 SCR 797 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 2 SCR 797           referred to                             Para 40
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1094
1094
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1095
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7719
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No.12296 of 2016.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Olivia Bang, Satya Mitra, M. Shoeb
Alam, Mohd. Ovais, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ashutosh Jha,
Ms. Priyanka Telang, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Om
Prakash Shukla, Gopal Jha, Ms. Manisha Chava, Sughosh Subramanyam,
Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. 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 lis 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
ASHUTOSH KUMAR v. THE FILM AND TELEVISION
INSTITUTE OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
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
Su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.