‘₹700 for coffee?’ SC flags steep multiplex rates, says pricing could drive away audiences

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over steep ticket and food prices in multiplexes, cautioning that unreasonable rates could drive audiences away and leave cinema halls empty. The Court said pricing must be reasonable to encourage public attendance.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the remarks while hearing petitions by the Multiplex Association of India and others challenging the conditions imposed by the Karnataka High Court while staying the Karnataka Government's decision to cap ticket prices at ₹100. The High Court had directed multiplexes to maintain auditable ticket records, track buyer identities for both online and offline sales and enable refunds if the State eventually succeeded in the case.

Referring to food and beverage pricing, Justice Nath observed that multiplexes charge ₹100 for a water bottle and ₹700 for coffee. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Multiplex Association, argued that pricing was a matter of business choice, likening it to premium hotel rates. He contended that the State cannot fix such prices.

Justice Nath responded that cinema attendance is already declining and urged multiplexes to adopt reasonable pricing to remain viable. He noted that traditional single-screen theatres have largely disappeared, leaving multiplexes as the only cinema option for many viewers.

Rohatgi submitted that the High Court's directions were impractical, particularly the requirement to record identity details of cash buyers. He argued that most tickets are sold through online platforms such as BookMyShow, which already hold customer data, and said multiplexes do not independently maintain such records. He termed the directions unworkable.

The State counsel defended the interim conditions as necessary to ensure refunds if the State ultimately prevails. Senior advocates Shyam Divan and V Lakshminarayana submitted that the State lacked statutory authority to fix prices and that the High Court's order was a "consent order" that was passed after all parties agreed to the interim arrangement.

The Supreme Court issued notice and stayed the High Court’s conditions pending further hearing.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)