According to a Supreme Court bench the owner the Cinema halls has the right to impose conditions as long as they do not jeopardize public interest, safety, or welfare.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday, 3rd January cinema halls have the right to prevent moviegoers from bringing in food or drink from outside. A bench of Chief Justices of India DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha said the halls must however provide viewers with free hygienic drinking water and allow parents to carry food for infants accompanying them.
“The property of the cinema hall is the private property of the hall owner. The owner has the right to impose conditions as long as these conditions are not contrary to the public interest, safety, and welfare. The owner has the right to set conditions for the sale of food and drinks. Moviegoers have a choice not to buy these,” the bench said while listening to a plea challenging the July 2018 order by the Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court overturning the restriction on moviegoers to take their own food in cinema halls.
Verdict of the Bench
The Supreme Court overturned the order, saying, “The High Court has overstepped the bounds in the exercise of its jurisdiction.” Noting that there was no statutory requirement for such an order, the Supreme Court added that “the imposing such orders would infringe on the legitimate rights of theatre owners” to bring their own food into the theatres.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the movie ticket was a contract between the individual and the state and unless a prohibition was printed on it, movie theatres could not ban outdoor dining. However, Judge Narasimha noted that “the basic premise is that the cinema has the right to reserve admission. The cinema owners have the right to sell their own food and drink”. Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, acting for the applicants, also argued that cinema screens were private property and could reserve the right of entry.
He claimed there was no provision in the Jammu and Kashmir Cinema (Regulations) Rules of 1975 allowing moviegoers to bring in outside food and that no theatre required patrons to purchase food.
Statement of CJI Chandrachud
While acknowledging that a cinema hall is private property, CJI Chandrachud stated that “it is not a gym where visitors require healthy food, but rather a place of entertainment. What goes in is up to the property owner,” he continued.” So saying that arms are not permitted or that no discrimination based on caste or gender is permissible is fine. But how can the High Court rule that they can bring food into cinemas?”
He inquired as to who would pay for cleaning if someone began eating jalebis and wiping their hands on the seats. He also stated that people may bring tandoori chicken and leave the bones, which may result in further complaints. “No one forces (visitors) to buy popcorn. However, the owner has a right,” he explained.
“For water, we can make a concession that free water be provided at movie theatres, but you can’t say that if they sell nimbu paani for Rs 20, you can’t say I’ll go buy my nimbu from outside and squeeze it in a flask and take it inside theatre,” the court said.
The court ruled in favour of the movie theatre owners.
“The High Court overstepped its bounds in exercising its jurisdiction. There are no statutory rules to that effect. The imposition of such orders would jeopardise the theatre owner’s legitimate rights”, according to the bench.
READ MORE:
https://tdznkwjt9mxt6p1p8657.cleaver.live/first-transgender-execution-for-rapemurder-in-us/
https://tdznkwjt9mxt6p1p8657.cleaver.live/arrival-of-the-second-batch-of-12-cheetahs-in-january/
