Summary
In a public interest petition, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed cinema owners not to stop patrons from bringing their own food and water. The Supreme Court set that direction aside. No rule or statute requires theatres to allow outside food, and a High Court acting under Article 226 must respect that legislative scheme. A cinema hall is private property, and its owner, exercising rights under Article 19(1)(g), may set entry conditions that do not offend public interest, safety or welfare. Patrons are not compelled to buy food inside. The ban has a commercial logic and is not unconscionable. The Court recorded that free drinking water is provided and that food for infants is allowed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, under Article 226, could direct cinema hall owners not to prohibit movie goers from carrying their own food and beverages into the hall when no statute or rule required it.
- Whether a prohibition on outside food and beverages as a condition of entry violates movie goers' right to choice of food and health under Article 21, or is an unfair term imposed by unequal bargaining power.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Mafatlal Industries, writ jurisdiction must be exercised with regard to legislative intent; the absence of any provision in the regulating enactments requiring theatres to admit outside food meant the direction was unjustified. (¶¶ 17, 21, 22, 28)
- Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of IndiaThe right of cinema owners to carry on business includes deciding their business model, menu, prices and conditions of entry, subject to reasonable restrictions by law; the State's rule-making power must be exercised consistently with that right. (¶¶ 19, 20, 23, 31)
- Rule 87, Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1975The High Court's direction to ensure uniform ticket prices under Rule 87(i) and (ii) is not to be construed as imposing any requirement beyond the rule as it stands. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38)
Held
- The English contract cases on ticket terms relied on by the original petitioners (Parker, Olley, McCutcheon, Thornton) concerned liability under contract terms in suits for damages and have no bearing on whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised; a person claiming injury or a refund because of a term not made known must file a suit. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Neither the 1975 Rules nor the Cinematograph Act 1952, the 1983 Certification Rules or the Jammu and Kashmir Cinematograph Act and Rules of 1989 require theatres to permit outside food, and the High Court transgressed its Article 226 jurisdiction by issuing such a direction and requiring the State to enforce it. (¶¶ 20, 22, 28)
- A cinema hall is private property and an entertainment bundle in which food sales are part of the business; the owner may decide the menu and its price, affordability being unrelated to conditions of entry, and patrons who are not compelled to buy food are not denied any right to choice of food or good health. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Under Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, unreasonable terms imposed by a party with superior bargaining power may not be enforced, but a term is unfair only if one-sided or devoid of commercial logic; the outside-food ban, aimed at boosting food sales, is neither, so movie goers are bound by it. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Recording the appellants' statements that free hygienic drinking water is provided and that reasonable food for infants and young children is allowed, the Court requested cinema owners to consider requests from patrons with medical dietary needs case by case. (¶¶ 33, 34)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of 2023 allowed and direction (i) in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment dated 18.07.2018 in PIL No. 11 of 2018 set aside, the other directions not being in issue; the direction on Rule 87 confined to the rule as it stands; Transferred Case (C) Nos. 28 and 29 of 2019 dismissed.