Karnataka High Court stays rule capping film ticket prices at ₹200

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday stayed the State government's recent decision to cap the maximum price chargeable for movie tickets at ₹200 [Multiplex Association of India and anr v. State of Karnataka, and connected matters].

Justice Ravi V Hosmani passed the interim order on petitions filed by multiplex owners and movie producers challenging the State government's decision.

The Court reasoned that prima facie, there appeared to be no provision in the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act which would enable the State to impose a limit on movie ticket prices.

"Prima facie, scheme of Act appears to be to regulate exhibition of cinematographs films by placing restriction on places of exhibition by subjecting said activity to licencing ... Prima facie, there appears no provision specifically providing for or enabling regulation of ticket price in Statute ...  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," the order said.

The Court added that there were also doubts about whether the new rules capping ticket prices was reasonable, considering that the costs borne by movie theatres and film producers a likely to vary depending on where the film is exhibited.

"There is no dispute about ticket prices varying from theater to theater for same movie within same town or City and in different towns or Cities, having regard to cinegoer population, cost of production of movie, expected return as well as cost of investment on provision of facilities for comfort of cinegoer, especially in Theaters. Judicial notice can be taken of fact that cost of land in a City like Bengaluru cannot be compared muchless equated with that in District places ... 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." it explained.

The Court further observed that the film theatres and film producers have more to lose if the new rules are not stayed until a final decision is taken on whether the price cap should be upheld or set aside.

"Even applying balance of convenience test, if Amendment is not stayed, and petitioners ultimately succeed in writ petition, petitioners would stand to lose earning permanently, while if Amendment is stayed and petitioners ultimately loose, appropriate orders could be passed about money collected by petitioners above, cap fixed as same would be accounted for in course of business."

It concluded that, therefore, the new rules capping the movie ticket prices must be stayed.

"It is found fit to grant an interim order of stay of Amendment, until further orders," the Court ordered.

The case involves a challenge to the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025. The said amendment caps movie ticket prices at ₹200 for all cinema theatres, including multiplexes.

Petitions were filed by film producers, the Multiplex Association of India (MAI) and a PVR INOX shareholder challenging the amended rules.

In their joint plea, the petitioners contended that capping cinema ticket prices for all theatres, regardless of whether they are multiplexes or not, was unreasonable since multiplexes bear more costs that single-screen film theatres.

"The blanket application of the cap across single screens and multiplexes, irrespective of cost variations, investment, technology, location, or format (IMAX, 4DX, etc.), renders the impugned rules manifestly arbitrary," the plea stated.

The petitioners also highlighted that the rules selectively cap cinema ticket prices while OTT platforms, satellite TV and other entertainment platforms remain unregulated.

The plea further pointed that the rules arbitrarily exempt "multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of 75 seats or less'" from its application, without any definition being given on what constitutes "premium facilities."

All of this violates the theatre owners' fundamental right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, it was submitted.

During hearings, the MAI, represented by Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, argued that the ₹200 cap on film ticket prices was arbitrary.

He contended that if customers wished to pay more for luxury cinema experiences, they should have that choice. Film exhibitors should have the freedom to set prices for offering such luxury services, he added.

The rule imposing a limit on movie ticket prices has no connection with consumer protection and instead serves as an unreasonable restriction on business, he argued.

He also recounted that a similar State-imposed cap on movie ticket prices from seven years ago was eventually withdrawn after it was challenged in court.

Holla further submitted that such a cap on movie ticket prices would severely affect the business of theatre owners. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also appeared for MAI.

Representing production company Hombale Films, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa argued that the parent rules under which the amendment under challenge was introduced, only dealt with licensing and construction of cinema halls and not ticket pricing.

He argued that the State had no authority to introduce a cap on ticket prices. Pricing should remain a matter between film exhibitors/theatres and their customers, he asserted.

He added that in the Kannada film industry, movie producers depend on fair pricing of tickets to recover heavy investments. Arbitrary caps on movie tickets could affect this and violate the producer's right to carry on their business, he said.

He also questioned whether the government had studied industry realities before introducing the amended rules.

Allied arguments were made by the counsel representing another petitioner, Keystone Entertainments.

Senior Advocates DR Ravishankar and Vikram Huilgol also appeared for the petitioners, Hombale Films, VK Films and Keystone Entertainments, along with Advocate Bhargava D Bhat of Samya Law Chambers.

The State, on the other hand, argued that its decision was based on public interest considerations. The State's counsel also contended that the State has powers to introduce restrictions on movie ticket prices under Karnataka Cinema Act and the Constitution of India.

The new rule was made for the benefit of directors, the film fraternity, and consumers in line with the principles under Article 38 of the Constitution, it was contended.

The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Ismail Zabiulla, along with Additional Government Advocate Bhojegouda T Koller.

The hearings also saw the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) express that it wished to intervene and assist the Court. The KFCC's counsel opposed any grant of interim relief to the petitioners.

The petition by MAI was filed through Advocates Nikhilesh Rao and Avinash Balakrishna of Khaitan & Co LLP.