Multiplexes, producers move Karnataka High Court against ₹200 cap on film ticket prices

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on whether the ₹200 cap imposed on movie ticket prices in the State need to be stayed [Multiplex Association of India and anr v. State of Karnataka, and connected matters].

Justice Ravi V Hosmani was hearing a plea filed by multiplex owners and movie producers against the State government's recent decision to cap the maximum price chargeable for cinema tickets at ₹200

The judge indicated that he will pronounce orders on the question of interim relief on September 23.

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 MAI - which represents leading movie theatre chains - and a PVR INOX shareholder (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 today's hearing, 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 the a similar State-imposed cap on movie ticket prices from seven years ago was eventually withdrawn after it was challenged in court.

The MAI's counsel further submitted that such a cap on movie ticket prices would severely affect the business of theatre owners.

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.

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

However, the Court did not hear KFCC's counsel in detail and suggested the body to file an impleading application.

The matter will be heard next on September 23.

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