Supreme Court Judgment On The Right Of Cinemas To Restrict Food Inside The Theatres

A Supreme Court bench composed of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha ruled that a cinema owner could prevent moviegoers from bringing food and beverages into the theatre. The bench, however, stressed that all Cinema Halls must give free hygienic drinking water to all customers in theatres. It was also discovered that when a newborn or child accompanied a parent, a reasonable amount of food for them could be carried in theatres.

Issues 

The issue arose after the Jammu and Kashmir High Court advised owners of multiplexes/cinema halls in the state not to ban moviegoers from bringing food and water into the theatre. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court petitioned the Supreme Court in response to the contested payment.

Appellants arguments

Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan, who represented the appellants, argued that because cinema halls were private property, they could reserve admission rights. He went on to say that such limitations ensured security and could be observed in airports, among other locations. He further stated that the Jammu and Kashmir Cinema (Regulations) Rules 1975 did not allow moviegoers to bring food into theatres. While claiming that there was no obligation for anyone to visit cinemas or buy meals, he stressed that all cinema halls provided sanitary water for moviegoers and that guardians were permitted to bring in food for newborns for the duration of their visit.

In contrast, the initial petitioner's attorney argued that the cinema ticket constituted a contract between a moviegoer and the theatre, and therefore in the absence of a ban inscribed on the ticket, outside food could not be forbidden.

The original petitioner did not persuade the bench. According to Justice PS Narasimha,

"The essential concept is that cinemas have the right to reserve seating. The owners of cinemas have the right to serve food and beverages."

DY Chandrachud, CJI, added

"A movie theatre is private property. What goes in is up to the property owner to decide, subject to statutory rules. So stating that arms are not permitted or that no discrimination based on caste or gender is acceptable. But how can the High Court rule that they can carry food into cinemas? Assume someone begins to get jalebis. Nobody should wipe their hands on the seats, according to the owner. That is his right. He might not want the tandoori chicken delivered. Nobody is forcing them to purchase popcorn. However, the owner has a legal right. For water, we can make a concession that free water be offered in movie theatres, but you can't claim that if they sell nimbu paani for Rs 20/-, I'll go outside and squeeze it in a flask and make it inside the theatre."

As a result, the court stated that the key component that needed to be examined was that the trade and business of operating cinema operations were subject to state restrictions. The 1975 Rules were the ones in controversy. The bench determined that the Rules did not require the owner to enable moviegoers to purchase food in the theatre. CJI DY Chandrachud said while dictating the order:

Cinema hall's property is the sole property 

"The cinema hall's property is the sole property of the hall's owner. The owner has the right to impose terms and conditions as long as they do not jeopardize the public interest, safety, or welfare. The owner has the authority to set the terms for the sale of food and beverages. The moviegoer has the option of not purchasing the same. The High Court overstepped its bounds in exercising its jurisdiction. There is no statutory regulation to the contrary. Such directives would infringe on the legitimate rights of the theatre owner."

At the same time, the bench reaffirmed that theatres must supply sanitary drinking water to moviegoers free of charge. It went on to say-

"It is also repeated that while accompanied by a parent, cinema proprietors shall not object to acceptable food carried for the infant."