Agency News
'Why buy a network that even Dentsu couldn’t fix?': Inside the gamble of Dentsu's international arm sale
Multiplexes, producers challenge Karnataka’s ₹200 ticket ceiling in High Court
The matter stems from a clutch of petitions filed by multiplex owners, film producers, and a PVR INOX shareholder challenging the recently introduced Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025.
The matter stems from a clutch of petitions filed by multiplex owners, film producers, and a PVR INOX shareholder challenging the recently introduced Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on whether to stay the State government’s decision to cap cinema ticket prices at ₹200. The matter stems from a clutch of petitions filed by multiplex owners, film producers, and a PVR INOX shareholder challenging the recently introduced Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani, who heard the petitions, indicated that the ruling on interim relief will be delivered on 23 September.
The petitioners — including the Multiplex Association of India (MAI), which represents leading theatre chains — argued that the cap was arbitrary and disproportionately impacted multiplexes. They submitted that the rule applied uniformly to single-screen cinemas and multiplexes, despite the latter incurring significantly higher costs on technology, infrastructure, and premium formats such as IMAX and 4DX.
“The blanket application of the cap across single screens and multiplexes, irrespective of cost variations, investment, technology, location, or format, renders the impugned rules manifestly arbitrary,” the plea stated.
The petitioners also contended that while cinema tickets had been capped, other entertainment platforms such as OTT services and satellite television remained untouched. Moreover, the exemption granted to “multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of 75 seats or less” was criticised as vague and lacking definition.
Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, representing the MAI, argued that if audiences were willing to pay for luxury viewing experiences, exhibitors should be free to set their own prices. He maintained that the restriction bore no connection to consumer protection and instead curtailed the fundamental right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for production house Hombale Films, argued that the parent rules under which the amendment was introduced dealt only with licensing and construction of cinema halls, not ticket pricing. He said producers rely on ticket revenues to recover investments, and arbitrary caps could damage the industry’s financial stability.
Keystone Entertainments’ counsel echoed these submissions.
The State, however, defended its decision, stating that the amendment was introduced in public interest under powers conferred by the Karnataka Cinema Act and the Constitution. The State’s counsel argued that the measure was aimed at protecting consumers and supporting the film fraternity in line with Article 38 of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also sought to intervene, opposing any interim relief to the petitioners. The Court, however, asked the body to file a formal impleading application.
The case will now be heard again on 23 September, when the Court is expected to deliver its decision on interim relief.
SPOTLIGHT
According to LinkedIn’s research with over 1,700 B2B tech buyers, video storytelling has emerged as the most trusted, engaging, and effective format for B2B marketers. But what’s driving this shift towards video in B2B? (Image Source: Unsplash)
Read MoreExplained: Standing Committee’s draft report on India’s fight against Fake News
India’s parliamentary panel warns fake news threatens democracy, markets and media credibility, urging stronger regulation, fact-checking, AI oversight and global cooperation.