Article

Nearly all, who have watched movies in theatre, know that food is prohibited inside theatres. This is usually aimed at encouraging in-house sale of food in cinema halls. The food is sold at exorbitant prices. There are at the cinemas notices pasted outside the hall prohibiting carrying outside food and security personnel search the belongings of every cinema goer with a view to enforce the prohibition. In the event that movie goers are found in possession of eatables, they are asked to leave the food behind.

Two advocates in Jammu and Kashmir filed a PIL against cinema owners on this issue before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K. The contention of the Petitioners mainly hinged on the fact that Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1975 framed under Jammu and Kashmir Cinematograph Act,1989 for regulating public exhibitions by means of Cinematographs, does not include prohibition with respect to carrying food. The food sold inside the cinema halls is at a high price and the prohibition results in cinema goers being compelled to purchase junk food and water from theatre premises. Then there can be viewers who may be accompanied by infant and elders with special dietary requirements or viewers who are, say diabetic for instance. According to the Petitioners, the act of cinema owners imposing such restriction on food tantamount to violation of the right to choice of food, including the right not to eat junk food and right to good health, which comes under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir gave a verdict in favour of the Petitioners directing the multiplexes and cinema halls owners of the State of J&K not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers henceforth from carrying his/her own food articles and water inside the theatre.

When the judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Court went into the analysis of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution  which recognizes the right of citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business subject to the reasonable restrictions as prescribed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Court referred to the judgment in Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly (2016) 6 SCC 82 to add that the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution includes all activities which enable citizens to generate economic benefits and earn a livelihood.

As a foremost observation, the Court stated that none of the laws framed by the State Government including Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1975, Cinematograph Act 1952, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 and, the Jammu and Kashmir Cinematograph Act 1989 contain a rule compelling the owner of a cinema theatre to allow a movie goer to bring food or beverages from outside within the precincts of the theatre or includes any provision which requires theatre owners to permit movie goers to carry food and beverages of their own into the cinema hall. The Court found that “legislature’s omission of a provision requiring the cinema owner to allow eatables and beverages to be brought from outside is significant”. Further, the Court observed that cinema theatres are private properties of the owners which entitles them to imposed certain terms and conditions so long as they do not prejudice public interest, safety and welfare. Since a cinema owner is running a business, he has the freedom to determine the terms to make his business economically viable and further to maximise his profitability. The condition to not allow bringing food in the theatre premises is well within the right conferred by the Constitution and is also not contrary to public interest, safety or welfare.

The Court further appreciated the fact that cinema halls are no longer a place solely for exhibiting cinematographic films but offers a bundle of entertainment where provision of food also forms a part and adds to the profitability of business. Although the Petitioners have contended that the food being sold in the theatres is junk food and thus unhealthy and at the same time sold at exorbitant price, the Court observed that it being part of the commercial decision, the cinema owners have the liberty to decide the menu of the food being sold in their theatre along with the price of the items being served in their premises.

Movie goers on the other hand have the choice of not purchasing/consuming the food being sold at the theatre if it is not to their liking.  The purchase of a movie ticket in no way compels the movie goer to purchase and consume the food at the theatre. In other words, “they are not being prevented from exercising their right to choice of food.” The Court therefore, concluded that “Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice of viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted. Having reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre owners to determine whether food from outside the precincts of the cinema hall should be permitted to be carried inside.”

The Court then went on to further understand the concept of unequal bargaining power as explained in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156 and whether this would apply in the case before them. The judgment in Central Inland Water assesses whether the parties have unequal bargaining power relative to one another and lays down when a contractual term or a contract is unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. The Court summarised that a contract (or a term in a contract) can be said to be unfair or unreasonable if it is one-sided or devoid of any commercial logic. The Court explained that commercial logic of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food and beverages and any restriction on that in the likes of what the Petitioners have been seeking shall prejudice the economic activity of the business owners. The viewers are bound by the conditions of entry in the cinemas in the same way as visitors who are prohibited to take pictures in museums or audience who are banned from recording live performances etc. The Court therefore found the judgment of the High Court in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in issuing a direction prohibiting theatre owners from disallowing food and beverages to be brought in by persons entering a movie theatre who enter it for viewing a film. The Court, however, requested the cinema owners to look at the movie goers with chronic diseases who may have received dietary instructions from doctors or are under dietary restrictions due to medical conditions on case to case basis.