Today, On 16th September, Multiplexes Owners and film producers have approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the Rs.200 limit on movie ticket prices. They claim the price restriction is “manifestly arbitrary,” affecting single screens and multiplexes regardless of location, technology, or format.
The Karnataka High Court reserved its judgment regarding the Rs.200 cap on movie ticket prices in the state.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani is reviewing a petition from multiplex owners and film producers challenging the state government’s recent decision to impose this maximum price for cinema tickets.
The judge indicated that he would deliver his ruling on the question of interim relief on September 23.
The case involves a challenge to the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which set the Rs.200 limit on ticket prices for all cinema theatres, including multiplexes.
Petitions were submitted by film producers, the Multiplex Association of India (MAI), and a shareholder of PVR INOX contesting the amended regulations. In their joint petition, the MAI, representing major cinema chains, and the PVR INOX shareholder argued that applying a blanket cap on ticket prices for all theatres, regardless of their type, is unreasonable given that multiplexes incur higher costs compared to single-screen theatres.
The plea stated,
“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 petitioners also pointed out the inconsistency in regulating cinema ticket prices while other entertainment platforms, like OTT services and satellite TV, remain unregulated. They further noted that the rules exempt “multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of 75 seats or less” without defining what constitutes “premium facilities.”
They contend that this violates the fundamental right of theatre owners to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Udaya Holla, representing the MAI, argued that the Rs.200 ticket price cap is arbitrary. He maintained that if customers want to pay more for luxury cinema experiences, they should have that option. He insisted that film exhibitors should have the freedom to set prices for premium services.
Holla remarked that the rule imposing a limit on ticket prices has no real connection to consumer protection and instead acts as an unreasonable restriction on business. He recalled that a similar cap imposed by the state seven years ago was eventually rescinded after being challenged in court.
He further argued that such a cap would significantly harm theatre owners’ businesses.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, representing production company Hombale Films, contended that the original rules under which the amendment was introduced addressed only licensing and construction of cinema halls, not ticket pricing.
He asserted that the state lacks the authority to impose a cap on ticket prices, which should be a matter of agreement between film exhibitors and their customers.
Chinnappa emphasized that fair ticket pricing is essential for producers in the Kannada film industry to recover large investments, and arbitrary caps could infringe upon their right to conduct business. He also questioned whether the government had considered industry realities before implementing the amended rules.
Arguments from other petitioners, including Keystone Entertainments, echoed these sentiments.
In defense, the state argued that its decision was made in the public interest. The state’s counsel asserted that it has the authority to impose restrictions on ticket prices under the Karnataka Cinema Act and the Constitution of India.
They claimed that the new rule was intended for the benefit of directors, the film community, and consumers, aligning with the principles of Article 38 of the Constitution.
During the proceedings, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) expressed a desire to intervene and assist the court, opposing any interim relief for the petitioners. However, the court did not hear KFCC’s counsel in detail, advising them to file an impleading application.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 23.
The MAI’s petition was filed through advocates Nikhilesh Rao and Avinash Balakrishna of Khaitan & Co LLP.
Case Title: Multiplex Association of India and anr v. State of Karnataka, and connected matters