Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Plea To Stay Rules Capping Movie Ticket Price At ₹200

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 16) reserved its verdict on the interim relief sought in pleas by Multiplex Association of India and other entities challenging Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules 2025 which caps movie ticket prices at Rs 200.

As interim relief, the petitioners have sought for a stay of the Rules, pending further hearing of the main petition. 

After hearing the matter for some time, Justice Ravi V Hosmani in its order dictated:

"Since all the Writ Petitions raise similar challenge to amended rule they are clubbed together. Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners and AAG for the respondents on the prayer for interim relief. Reserved for orders". 

Proviso capping ticket price arbitrary

Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Association argued that the petitioner had challenged a notification which amends a Rule framed under Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act. He said that a proviso has been added by the amendment, which is completely arbitrary.

"The price of ticket is fixed at Rs 200. What is the basis for doing this? If a customer wants to pay more for more luxury there is no reasoning why with a broad brush," he said.

Rohatgi said that a similar Government Order was passed in April 2017, which was challenged before the High Court and the direction was suspended.

"Once this was done, the government withdrew the order then. History is repeating itself now. Earlier it was by way of GO and now amendment by a rule," Rohatgi said. 

"We have spent huge sums of money on creating cinema hall for a price. There cant be a direction that all your tickets should be at Rs 200. Or all airlines should be economy class. There is no power under the Act to fix a price whatsoever," he said. 

Act does not contemplate ticket price capping

He said that the Act never contemplated a price fixation of ticket and the amendment is a direct restriction on the cinema owners right of carrying out business.

"Hundreds of cinemas are affected, and operation of the proviso be suspended till lordships decide the matter finally," he said. 

Meanwhile senior advocate Uday Holla appearing for another petitioner submitted that in the earlier GO there was a cap on ticket price.

"In 2017 they had put a cap of Rs 200...after so many years again the same cap is put. Earlier GO was withdrawn. So we have sought an interim order for stay...," he said. 

State has no power under Act to fix price of ticket

In the post lunch session, Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa for M/S. HOMBALE FILMS LLP submitted that the entire action of making a rule in the guise of amending the rule is completely illegal.

"It is a proviso to Rule 55. Rule 55 is in respect of ticket booths. It is about how it is to be set up etc. It has nothing to do with fixation of any rate. Rule 55 (6) charges for each ticket as well as other charges shall be as relevant in the act and rules. Proviso is introduced to sub Rule 55 (6). Can a proviso be introduced which does not provide for fare fixation? That to in a rule?," he said. 

He referred to Section 19 of the Act pertaining to government's power to make rules and said that applying this provision the state government had amended the Rules by adding a proviso, when the state does not have a power in the Act to fix charge of ticket.

Chinnappa said that power to fix a maximum price has to be given by the legislation. The court asked if ticket price has been defined anywhere in the Act or Rules. He however said that Rule 55 does not provide for fixation of charges. He said that the Rules are framed on how license should be granted and building for cinema is to be constructed etc.

Proviso cannot enlarge main provision

"A proviso cannot enlarge what is in the main provision and the main provision cannot become a proviso. We make movies on the assumption that there will be fair pricing. We make Kannada films and our earning are dependent. Without considering the investments we have to put in the govt says price of ticket is Rs 200. Was there any study done? This is a case of non-application of mind. Without examination of what goes in making a film and without any empirical data and thus is arbitrary and the rule should be stayed" he said. 

Regulation of ticket price must be traceable to law

Meanwhile senior advocate D R Ravishankar appearing for a theatre said that, "This is purely a private contract between the exhibitor and the movie-goer. A movie in one theatre would be at a ticket price and same movie in another would be at another ticket price". 

Ravishankar said that Act provides for regulating exhibition by means of cinematographs and the licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the State.

But when it comes to fixation of fee, it should be traceable to the legislation which gives a subordinate delegation with a power to fixation of fee, he said. Thus in absence of that nothing should be done, he said. He said if price is sought to be regulated the powers should be essentially traceable as it is going to infringe the petitioners' rights under Article 19 (1) (g).

Ravishankar said in the present law there is no discretion. 

"This is not just one business there are multiple business where licenses are required. If there is no business, economy crumbles. If this is to be undertaken there has to be a statute. Some policy is to be laid down on the basis of some data...even if you want to undertake this it should have been preceded with a data or study," he added.

State action in public interest

AAG Ismail Zabiulla appearing for the state government said objections had been filed by some of the petitioners to a draft notification published on July 15. 

He referred the State Budget speech of March 7, regarding caping of ticket price and said, "This is done in the interest of general public. Consequently, annexure A came to be passed. My right to regulate flows from the Constitution".

He referred to List II Entry 33 (Theatres and dramatic performances; cinemas subject to provisions of entry 60 of List I; sports, entertainments and amusements)

He said that the grounds on which a legislation can be declared invalid is with regard to the legislative competence of legislature or that such a legislation is in contravention of any of the fundamental rights stipulated in Part III of the Constitution or any other provision of the Constitution or that it is manifestly arbitrary.

Meanwhile the counsel for KFCC who has filed an impleadment application said that he wanted to assist the court; however the court orally said that the matter was not a PIL and the body would have to substantiate its locus.

The court thus granted time to the petitioner to file its objections to KFCC's impleadment application. 

Case title: Multiplex Association of India & Anr AND State of Karnataka and Batch

Case No: WP 28146/2025 and Batch

Counsel for petitioners: Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Uday Holla, Dhyan Chinnappa, DR Ravishankar and Vikram Huigol

Counsel for KFCC: Senior advocate V Lakshminarayana

Counsel for State: AAg Ismail Zabiulla