The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S Kamal heard petitions filed by the Multiplex Association of India, Hombale Films and other entities challenging the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which introduce a proviso to Rule 55(6) fixing the maximum price of a cinema ticket at Rs. 200 for all screenings across the state.
Senior Counsel Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the amendment is ultra vires the Karnataka Cinema Regulations Act, 1964. He contended that Section 19 of the Act deals solely with licensing, regulation of cinematograph exhibitions and the power to regulate or prohibit the sale of tickets, but does not confer authority to fix ticket prices. According to Chinnappa, the proviso to Rule 55(6) attempts to impose a price ceiling where the enabling statute provides none.
Chinnappa highlighted that Rule 55(6) originally states that charges for each ticket and other charges shall be as applicable under the relevant Acts and Rules. The 2025 amendment adds a proviso that reads: ‘Provided that the maximum ticket price for all screenings of films in all languages in all theaters in the State, including multiplexes, has been fixed at Rs. 200 (two hundred rupees only) exclusive of all taxes.’ He argued that inserting a price fixation through a proviso to a rule that merely deals with ticket booths and their setup is a misapplication of delegated legislation.
The petitioners further submitted that the Rs. 200 cap is arbitrary and suffers from non‑application of mind. They pointed out that the 2017 government order, which also capped ticket prices at Rs. 200, had included an exemption for premium formats such as IMAX and 4DX. The 2025 rules, by contrast, provide an exemption only for theatres with premium facilities and fewer than 75 seats, leaving larger multiplexes without any relief.
Chinnappa questioned the basis for selecting the figure of Rs. 200, noting that the same amount appeared in the 2017 order and the 2025 amendment without any apparent study, consultation or empirical data. He described the figure as a ‘magical number’ chosen without reference to the varying costs, facilities or market dynamics of different cinema halls.
Emphasising the economic ripple effect of ticket pricing, the counsel argued that pricing decisions affect not only theatre owners but also distributors, producers, artists and ancillary service providers. He asserted that fixing a uniform price disregards the cascading nature of revenue sharing in the film industry.
On the constitutional front, Chinnappa invoked Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, submitting that cinema owners have the right to carry on their trade or business in the manner they deem appropriate. He argued that a state‑imposed price ceiling infringes upon this fundamental right by restricting the freedom to determine commercial terms.
The court was informed that a coordinate bench had previously granted an interim stay in similar pleas filed by the Multiplex Association of India, Hombale Films and others, following which the government withdrew the 2017 order. The petitioners contended that the present amendment seeks to revive the same measure through a rule‑making route, which they maintain is likewise unsustainable.
At the hearing, the bench listened to the submissions and has reserved its order. The matter remains pending before Justice M.G.S Kamal, with the parties awaiting the court’s determination on the legislative competence of the state to fix ticket prices and the validity of the Rs. 200 cap under the Karnataka Cinema Regulations Act, 1964.