Karnataka High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Rules Capping Movie Ticket Price At ₹200, Expands Scope To Protect Interest Of All

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 30) refused to stay a single judge order staying the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules 2025 which caps movie ticket prices at Rs 200.For context, a single judge had on September 23 stayed the rules till further orders on a plea moved by the Multiplex Association of India and other entities.A vacation bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K expanded the interim order stating, “The interest of justice would be served by expanding the interim order to protect the interest of all concerned.” The bench directed Respondent 1–Multiplex Association of India and its members to maintain accounts with regard to each and every ticket sale (excluding GST) which occurs at any of the multiplexes of the members of the association and keep track of the manner of booking tickets made electronically or by cash.“In the event of R1 and R2 (PVR INOX Ltd) failing in the challenge to the notification issued by the state, the amounts collected electronically could be returned back to the person who booked the ticket...to protect the interest of such cine goers, which is apparently sought to be protected by the state,” it said. “In so far as persons who have made payment of purchase price of ticket by cash, this court would deal with the same appropriately after the matter is considered on merits. In the event of R1 and R2 succeeding in the matter they could retain the same. In the event they fail in the matter, those amounts could be appropriated in public interest for appropriate public good,” it added. The court has directed the Multiplex Association of India to maintain a periodical account statement and submit it on a monthly basis to the licensing authority. It said “Since R1 (Multiplex Association of India) has approached the court representing all the multiplexes it would be the responsibility of R1 to collect all accounts and furnish to licensing authority by 15th of the next calendar month.”In the event of any of the multiplexes failing to furnish the details this interim arrangement would come to an end, in regards to the said multiplex in default and the impugned amendment would be applicable to such multiplexes it said. The court also accepted the request made by the government advocate that the order be made known to the general public. It said “Members of R1 (Association) shall exhibit the order in the auditorium at a prominent place and on the screen before commencement of the movie.” The court passed the order while issuing notice on the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Film Chamber of Commerce. The appellants have challenged the interim order contending that there is presumption of validity of constitutionality of any amendment at the time of challenge and on that ground there cannot be a stay at interim stage, without considering the validity thereof in detail. The bench on perusing the interim order said, “It is seen what is probably played on the mind of the single judge is the fact that if the amendment was not stayed and the petitioners ultimately succeeded in the petition, the petitioner would stand to lose the earning permanently while if amendment is stayed and petitioner lose appropriate orders could be passed about the money collected by the petitioners.” The high court has now directed the respondents to file their statement of objection within four weeks and posted the appeal for hearing on November 25.The single judge in his interim order had prima facie held that there appeared to be no provision specifically providing for or enabling regulation of ticket price in Statute. It had also said that no provision provides for reference to other enactments or Rules, which deal with fixation of price of ticket. "Thus in instant case, there are serious doubt about whether scheme of Act provides for regulation of ticket price and in its absence whether ticket price could be validly regulated by framing Rules," it had said. It had said, "...it would not be hard to fathom that as a direct consequence of placing cap on ticket price, each Film would require to be exhibited in more number of shows to earn expected return, which may not be possible with Film industry growing each day. Above factors leave no doubt that Provisos sought to be inserted by way of impugned Amendment suffer from vice of treating unequals as equal and equals unequally, without any intelligible differentia for classification. Besides above, Amendment would also be suspect of entering into matters of pure contract between willing parties, except on ground of public interest, safety and welfare... Right of admission to Cinema is contractual and owners of Cinemas would be justified in demanding return of investment and profit, which would be guided by market factors...". For aforesaid reasons, it is found fit to grant an interim order of stay of Amendment, until further orders.Case Title: Karnataka State Film Chamber of Commerce AND Multiplex Association Of...

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Rules Capping Movie Ticket Price At ₹200, Expands Scope To Protect Interest Of All

Mustafa Plumber

Tags