The Karnataka High Court on September 23 put an interim stay on the state government’s recent order dated September 12 to cap movie ticket prices at Rs. 200 across all cinemas, including multiplexes. The move came after multiplex operators and film producers challenged the government’s decision.This is the second time the Karnataka government has attempted to implement such a cap. A similar effort in 2017, also under a government led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, was challenged in court and eventually withdrawn by the government.The latest order, an amendment to the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 2014, was stayed by a single-judge bench comprising Justice Ravi V Hosamani, who heard arguments from producers of major upcoming films and the Multiplex Association of India (MAI).Story continues below this adWhat are the arguments against the price cap? How have other states and courts across India approached this issue? We explain.What happened in the Karnataka High Court?Petitioners, including the producers of the much-anticipated Kantara: Chapter 1, and the MAI, mounted a multi-pronged challenge to the government’s notification. Their core arguments, advanced by a battery of senior advocates including Mukul Rohatgi, DR Ravishankar, Vikram Huilgol, Udaya Holla and Dhyan Chinnappa, revolved around legislative competence, constitutional rights and economic viability.A primary contention was that the government’s order was an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Lawyers for multiplex owners argued that a “blanket application” of a Rs. 200 cap across single screens and multiplexes was “manifestly arbitrary.” They pointed out that multiplexes have significantly higher operational costs due to investments in advanced technologies like IMAX or 4DX, prime real estate locations and premium facilities, which a uniform cap fails to consider.Senior Advocate Holla argued that if a customer was willing to pay more for a luxury experience, they should have that choice, and exhibitors must have the freedom to set prices for such services.Story continues below this adAnother key legal argument questioned the state government’s authority to introduce a price cap through the existing rules. Senior Advocate Chinnappa, appearing for Hombale Films, pointed out that the parent Karnataka Cinema (Control) Act and its rules primarily deal with licensing and the construction of cinema halls, not the pricing of tickets. The new rule, he argued, was inserted into a section related to setting up ticket booths and had no connection to pricing.Petitioners also highlighted what they called an arbitrary exemption in the new rules for “multi-screen cinemas with premium facilities of 75 seats or less,” without defining what constitutes “premium facilities.” They flagged the selective nature of the regulation, which targeted cinema halls but left unregulated other entertainment platforms such as OTT and satellite TV.The state, represented by Additional Advocate-General Ismail Zabiulla and Additional Government Advocate Bhojegouda T Koller, defended the move as being in the public interest, intended to make cinema more accessible and benefit consumers and the film fraternity.However, after hearing the initial arguments, the court reserved its interim order and subsequently stayed the government’s notification, with the matter scheduled to be heard next on September 23.Story continues below this adTussle over ticket prices in other statesThe attempt to regulate movie ticket prices is not unique to Karnataka. Several other states, particularly in the south, have long-standing mechanisms to control how much a movie ticket can cost, leading to frequent legal battles between theatre owners and governments.Andhra Pradesh and TelanganaThe governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have been particularly active in regulating ticket prices. In Andhra Pradesh, ticket prices are capped at Rs. 177 and Rs. 295 for regular and recliner seats, respectively. In Telangana, the caps are slightly higher at Rs. 295 and Rs. 350 respectively.The involvement of the courts goes beyond the base price: Through an important interim order in April 2022, the Andhra Pradesh High Court weighed in on the issue of including online booking service charges within the overall ticket price. Hearing a petition by MAI, Justice DVSS Somayajulu gave a prima facie opinion that the “rate of admission” should only mean the “actual ticket cost” and that an amenity like online booking is an extra service that cannot be included in this rate. The court also observed that the power to fix rates is vested with the licensing authority and questioned whether the government could exercise this jurisdiction by itself.Both the AP and Telangana governments have provided special exemptions from the price caps for “super high budget films”. These have been successfully challenged before their High Courts this year.Story continues below this adEarlier this year, hearing PILs against extended price hikes for the films Game Changer and Sankranthiki Vasthunam, the court restricted the period for charging higher rates to ten days, down from the fourteen days the government had permitted. It also capped the number of daily shows at five, questioning the permissions granted for extra shows at odd hours like 1 a.m. and 4 a.m.The Telangana High Court has also similarly intervened on this issue. In January 2025, the court criticised the state government for permitting an increased fare and a 4 a.m. special screening for Game Changer. Justice B Vijaysen Reddy orally remarked, “People should sleep at 4 a.m., not go to the movies,” and directed the government to review its decision, questioning under which provision of law the fare was enhanced.Tamil Nadu and KeralaIn Tamil Nadu, ticket prices have been capped for years, with the current maximum base rate fixed at ₹150 (excluding taxes). This has been a point of contention for theatre owners, who argue that the low cap makes it difficult to expand operations or introduce luxury formats like 4DX.In a related matter of ancillary pricing, the Madras High Court in 2022 quashed a government order that fixed extremely low parking fees for cinema theatres. The court directed the government to refix the charges after taking into account the higher rates levied by municipal corporations, thereby acknowledging the economic realities faced by theatre owners.Story continues below this adIn Kerala, while there is no official cap yet, a PIL was filed in June in the Kerala High Court seeking the regulation of movie ticket prices, which the petitioner alleged had gone as high as Rs. 1,200-1,400 for certain seats. The court has sought the state government’s response. The government formed a committee in August to examine the issue.MaharashtraIn Maharashtra, a significant legal battle was fought not over the base ticket price, but the “convenience fees” charged for online bookings. In a July 2025 judgment, the Bombay High Court addressed a series of petitions filed by PVR Limited, MAI and online ticketing platform BookMyShow.The state government, through orders in 2013 and 2014, prohibited theatres and their agents from levying any additional service or convenience charges on online tickets. The government argued that this was necessary to prevent the “undue financial exploitation” of moviegoers.However, the Bombay High Court struck down these orders. A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain ruled that the government had no power under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923, to prohibit the collection of convenience fees. The court held that such a prohibition was an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Story continues below this adThe court reasoned that the Entertainment Duty Act was enacted only to levy and collect entertainment duty. Prohibiting a legitimate business from charging for a service – in this case, the convenience of booking a ticket online – fell outside the scope of the act. The judgment clarified that while the state could decide whether to levy entertainment tax on such fees, it could not outright prohibit the fee itself without a specific law empowering it to do so.Later, in a separate judgment in August, the court upheld a 2014 amendment to the act that brought convenience fees above Rs. 10 under the ambit of entertainment duty, clarifying the state’s power to tax such transactions but not to prohibit them.The Supreme Court’s view on uniform pricingWhile the Supreme Court has not delivered a definitive judgment on the power of states to cap ticket prices, it has weighed in on the related issue of uniform pricing.In January 2023, a bench comprising then-Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha disapproved of a Jammu and Kashmir High Court directive that mandated uniform ticket prices across all cinemas in the state. The top court opined that it would be unfair to force a multiplex providing superior facilities and a cinema hall with basic services to charge the same rate.Story continues below this adIt clarified that the rule should be interpreted as “equality amongst equals,” allowing for price differentiation based on the class of theatre and the facilities offered. This means that while different cinemas cannot have discriminatory rates for the same class of seats, a theatre can have different price points for different segments – like the balcony and stalls – and a multiplex can charge more than a single-screen theatre.The final verdict in the Karnataka case, along with the ongoing proceedings in Andhra Pradesh, will be keenly watched as they are likely to have significant implications for how Indians watch movies on the big screen.