Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a law student raising concern regarding the practice of multiplex cinemas displaying extended advertisements before movie screenings, causing delays beyond the showtime mentioned on movie tickets, a Division Bench of Anand Pathak* and Hirdesh, JJ., instructed the relevant authorities to objectively consider and deliberate upon the issue with all stakeholders and formulate regulations or guidelines. The Court further expressed that the authorities are expected to engage in meaningful discussions, acknowledging that “time is a valuable resource.”
The petitioner contended that this practice allegedly results in inconvenience to moviegoers who schedule their time based on the advertised showtime. The petitioner contended that this issue constitutes an unfair trade practice, as audiences are forced to watch advertisements, thereby making them a “captive audience” and violates their right to free choice and fair commercial practices. The petitioner relied on I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to choose under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ and —
-
Direct the authorities to frame and implement guidelines ensuring that all movie theatres adhere to the showtime mentioned on the ticket.
-
Direct respondents (1-3) to enforce appropriate regulations mandating compliance with showtime.
-
In the alternative, direction to respondents (5-9) to clearly specify two distinct timings on the ticket, one for theatre entry and another for the start of the movie.
-
Take action against respondents (5-9) for engaging in unfair trade practices and imposing penalties or sanctions as deemed necessary under relevant laws.
-
Awarding costs of the petition to the petitioner.
-
Passing of any other order deems fit in the interest of justice.
However, the Deputy Solicitor General representing Union of India opposed the issuance of notice and argued that the petition was not maintainable. The State Government also opposed the petition.
The Court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner but asserted that at present the issue is not ripe for judicial adjudication. The Court emphasised that the matter required policy-level discussions and consultations among multiple stakeholders before any judicial intervention.
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Court instructed the relevant authorities to objectively consider and deliberate upon the issue with all stakeholders before formulating any regulations or guidelines.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the final decision rested with the concerned authorities. The Court expressed that the authorities are expected to engage in meaningful discussions, acknowledging that “time is a valuable resource.” The ruling left open the possibility of future policy changes but refrained from judicial intervention at this stage.
The Court disposed of the petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to present a detailed representation to the appropriate authority.
[Swati Agrawal v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3290 Of 2025, Decided on 01-03-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Anand Pathak
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Deputy Solicitor General, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Union of India
Shri A.K. Nirankari, Government Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3
Buy Constitution of India HERE
