The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that time is a valuable resource while hearing a PIL against long advertisements before movies in cinemas. The court urged authorities to engage in meaningful discussions with all stakeholders to address the concern. The plea argued that extended ad durations cause inconvenience to viewers. The court’s remarks highlight the need for a balanced approach to advertising in movie theaters.
During a hearing regarding a petition against advertisements that delay movie screenings in cinema halls, the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed its expectation for both Central and State governments to hold meaningful discussions with all relevant stakeholders.
A Bench consisting of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh remarked,
“This Court expects the authorities to engage in meaningful discussion with all stakeholders because one cannot forget that ‘Time is a valuable resource,’ and how the divergent views can be reconciled is to be seen by the respondents.”
The petition, filed by a law student from Gwalior, criticized multiplex cinemas for exceeding the allowed advertising time, which inconveniences moviegoers. She pointed out that while tickets state a specific start time for films, screenings often begin much later due to extended ads, disrupting viewers’ schedules.
The Bench noted that the issue does not yet seem ready for court adjudication and requires administrative dialogue and decision-making.
The Court stated,
“It is to be discussed and decided at the policymaking stage as well as at the stage of administrative decision-making so that multiple stakeholders involved may be consulted and due deliberations/discussions be carried out at the appropriate level by the concerned authorities. Thereafter, if required, appropriate decision/guidelines be prepared and passed,”
The Court highlighted its intention to avoid subjective judgment at this stage, asserting that objectivity can only be achieved through consultation with all stakeholders, followed by a decision from the Union government.
The petitioner argued that exhibitors should provide accurate show timings to allow viewers to plan accordingly. She referenced a proposed law in Connecticut, USA, which mandates the disclosure of actual movie start times, suggesting similar measures for India. She also submitted a representation to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, urging action on this issue.
The petitioner requested the establishment of guidelines to ensure that all theaters in India adhere strictly to the advertised showtime on tickets. Alternatively, she proposed that tickets should clearly indicate two separate timings:
- The opening time for theater entry.
- The actual start time for the movie.
The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to submit a copy of her petition along with a detailed representation to the relevant authorities, outlining the issue objectively. The authorities were directed to discuss and decide the matter in accordance with the law, taking into account suggestions from various stakeholders.
Advocate Yogesh Chaturvedi represented the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar Newaskar represented the Central government, and Advocate AK Nirankari appeared for the State.
Recently, a consumer court in Bengaluru ordered PVR Cinemas to ensure that movie tickets reflect the actual start time of films rather than the time when advertisements are screened.
The consumer forum stated,
“In the new era, time is considered as money; each one’s time is very precious. No one has the right to benefit from another’s time and money. Sitting idle in the theater watching advertisements for 25-30 minutes is not trivial. For busy people with tight schedules, this is an inconvenience, as they seek relaxation with their families. This does not imply they have no other commitments,”
The petition raised concerns about excessive ad durations causing inconvenience to viewers. The court urged authorities to engage in discussions with stakeholders to find a balanced approach. The ruling highlights the need for regulation to ensure a fair viewing experience.
Case Title: Swati Agrawal c UOI & Ors
Read Attachment