New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court Tuesday stayed the state government’s controversial move to cap cinema ticket prices at Rs 200 across theatres, in a decision that brings relief to multiplex operators and film producers who argued that the cap would irreparably harm the film exhibition business in the state.
Justice Ravi V. Hosmani passed the order on a batch of petitions filed by the Multiplex Association of India (MAI), shareholders of PVR INOX, and leading film production houses including Hombale Films.
The petitioners had challenged the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which sought to fix Rs 200 as the maximum admission fee—for all movie screenings across single screens and multiplexes, irrespective of location, language or format—exclusive of all taxes, along with another proviso exempting multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of up to 75 seats or less from said fixation.
“Prima facie, there appears no provision specifically providing for or enabling regulation of ticket price in statute,” the court observed in its order, referring to the parent Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964.
The stay order is, however, an interim one and the final word on whether the Karnataka government can regulate ticket pricing will come when the court delivers its final judgment on the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendment.
Also Read: Why Karnataka’s Kho Kho world cup gold medallists refused cash prize by Siddaramaiah govt
‘Unequals treated as equal’
The 2025 amendment to the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 2014, inserted a provision under Rule 55(6), fixing the maximum ticket price at Rs 200, exclusive of taxes. The rule applied uniformly to all theatres across the state but carved out a narrow exemption for “multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of 75 seats or less”.
The amendment was justified by the government as a pro-consumer measure aimed at preventing exploitative ticket pricing. However, theatre owners and film producers described it as history repeating itself.
Back in 2017, the state had issued a government order (GO) imposing a similar cap. That order was stayed by the high court and later formally withdrawn in 2022. The petitioners in the present case argued that the 2025 amendment was essentially a repackaged version of the same policy, with no new justification or study backing it.
The petitioners’ central argument was that the state’s move ignored economic realities. Multiplexes in metropolitan areas like Bengaluru incur significantly higher land costs, infrastructure expenses, and operational overheads compared to single-screen theatres in smaller towns.
“There is no dispute about ticket prices varying from theatre to theatre for the same movie within the same town or city and in different towns or cities… judicial notice can be taken of the fact that cost of land in a city like Bengaluru cannot be compared much less equated with that in district places,” the high court noted in its order, agreeing that the rules seemed to paint all theatres with the same brush.
The court further observed that the Karnataka government’s amendment “suffer(ed) from (the) vice of treating unequals as equal and equals unequally, without any intelligible differentia for classification”, which raised concerns under Article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality).
Industry pushback
Senior advocate Udaya Holla, representing MAI, termed the Rs 200 cap “manifestly arbitrary”. He argued, according to the court order, that “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”.
Holla contended that cinema is a discretionary form of entertainment, and those who choose premium experiences like recliner seats or IMAX screens should have the freedom to pay for them.
“If customers wish 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 posited.
He also pointed out that while theatres are being singled out for price regulation, other entertainment platforms such as OTT services, satellite TV, or concerts remain unregulated.
Film producers, particularly from the Kannada film industry, argued that arbitrary caps on ticket prices could directly affect their ability to recover investments, urging that “pricing should remain a matter between film exhibitors/theatres and their customers”.
Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, representing Hombale Films (producers of blockbusters like KGF), emphasised that in an industry where production budgets are ballooning, producers rely on fair ticket pricing to ensure financial viability. Any state-imposed cap, he argued, would intrude into private commercial arrangements and restrict the right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
State defence
The Karnataka government defended the amendment as a welfare measure. It argued that it had legislative competence under Entry 33, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which allows states to regulate exhibitions of cinematograph films.
Citing the preamble of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act and its rule-making power under Section 19(2)(i), the state said the law provided “sufficient legislative competence” to regulate ticket pricing.
The government’s counsel pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Theatre, Dhuri vs State of Punjab (1992), where the court upheld the power of states to fix admission rates. The ruling had observed that once cinema halls invite the public at large, the state has the authority to step in to ensure fair access and prevent exploitative pricing.
The state further contended that the 2025 amendment followed due process: a draft notification was published in July, objections were invited and considered, and only then were the final rules notified on 12 September.
It insisted that the price cap was introduced “for the benefit of directors, the film fraternity, and consumers”, consistent with Article 38 of the Constitution, which obliges the state to promote social and economic justice.
Court view
Despite these arguments, the high court found that the petitioners had raised serious and valid doubts about the legality and fairness of the amendment.
“Right of admission to cinema is contractual and owners of cinemas would be justified in demanding return of investment and profit, which would be guided by market factors,” it said.
The court concluded that an interim stay was warranted. “It is found fit to grant an interim order of stay of amendment, until further orders,” said the court.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in KC Cinema vs State of J&K, which upheld cinema owners’ right to prohibit outside food, affirmed that theatres are private commercial spaces where owners can set terms unless they are unfair or unconscionable. The Karnataka High Court’s interim order now suggests that ticket pricing may similarly fall outside the scope of state regulation, unless backed by clear legislative authority.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Why ruling Congress & Kannada film industry are on a collision course