- The campaign for mandatory subtitles on South African TV has stalled after the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the National Council of and for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD), ending hopes for compulsory accessibility measures.
- Broadcasters and regulators, including ICASA, argue that current regulations only encourage but do not require subtitles, and any change would need to come from new policy or legislation rather than court intervention.
- The decision is a setback for the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community, who say the lack of subtitles excludes them from vital information, education, and participation in society.
The National Council of and for Persons with Disabilities (NCPD) has lost its years-long legal battle to make South African television more inclusive for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the council’s appeal against the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), ending hopes that the regulator could be forced to require broadcasters to include subtitles in all programming.
The NCPD first approached the High Court after years of frustration over the slow pace of progress in accessible broadcasting. It argued that ICASA, as the national regulator, had a constitutional duty to ensure that all South Africans including those with disabilities could access broadcast information on an equal basis. When the High Court dismissed the application, the council turned to the SCA for relief.
ICASA says it followed the law
ICASA defended its position by arguing that its existing regulations already encourage accessibility but do not make subtitles compulsory. It maintained that enforcing such requirements would need to come through a change in policy or legislation, not a judicial order. The authority insisted it had complied with its constitutional and statutory obligations within the limits of its mandate.
The SCA agreed. In a unanimous judgment, the court said ICASA “was not under any legal duty” to impose specific requirements on broadcasters to provide subtitles or sign language interpretation. The judgment emphasised that the Broadcasting Act and related regulations gave ICASA a discretionary, not mandatory, power to address accessibility issues.
“The appellant’s grievance,” the court wrote, “lies more in the legislative domain than in administrative action.” The judges added that while the NCPD’s cause was “commendable and necessary,” it was “not for the courts to fill in legislative gaps.”
A setback for inclusive communication
For many in the Deaf community, the decision was a bitter disappointment. Activists say it reinforces the systemic exclusion they face from mainstream media and public communication. “This judgment tells us our voices still don’t matter,” said one advocate outside court. “We’re asking for access, not charity.”
The NCPD argued that subtitles are about more than just watching TV. They are essential for education, employment, and civic participation. Without them, people who are Deaf or hard of hearing miss out on public announcements, news broadcasts, and political debates that shape the country’s democracy.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
