K.C. Theatre vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir

CITATION	2023 SCC  Online SC 22
DATE OF JUDGMENT	03 Jan 2023
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	K.C. Cinema (Correct Name K.C. Theatre)
RESPONDENT	The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
BENCH	CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha

INTRODUCTION

The judgement dtd. 18/7/2018 of a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court is the basis for this appeal. Two practicing lawyers filed a public interest lawsuit in the High Court, claiming that movie theatres in Jammu and Kashmir were forbidding patrons from bringing food into the theatres. In this case, it was alleged that movie theatre owners post a notice at the entrance specifying the ban and that security guards inspect each patron’s belongings in an effort to enforce the ban. It was reported that moviegoers are barred from entering the theatre if they are discovered to be in possession of food.

The argument presented to the High Court was that, as a result of the ban, moviegoers are forced to eat and drink anything that is served inside movie theatre premises, which forces them to pay “highly exorbitant rates” for food. Additionally, it was said that the food being sold is not always nutrient-dense and that those with long-term conditions (like diabetes) might need to consume a particular kind of food that isn’t offered at the movie theatre.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Two active lawyers filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the High Court, claiming that Jammu and Kashmir theatres were forbidding patrons from bringing food into the theatre. It was discovered that theatre owners had posted signs on the exterior of their buildings warning patrons that they would not be allowed back inside if they were seen bringing in outside food.
2. The court case included a petition alleging that by prohibiting certain foods and beverages from being purchased inside the theatre, patrons are forced to pay exorbitant prices for them and that the food is nutritionally deficient.
3. According to the ruling of the High Court, the state has notified the Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) rules 1975. The court concluded that:

• The 1975 regulations do not prevent patrons from bringing their own food items and water bottles inside theatres.
• The “junk” food was sold in the theatre, and patrons had to pay astronomically high prices for it.
• Article 21 of the Constitution states that the prohibition on bringing outside food and beverages inside theatres infringes people’s right to health and freedom of choice in eating.    
• After reviewing the allegations, the High Court issued numerous directives regarding the verdict, stating that “Cinema hall owners of the state Jammu and Kashmir are directed not to restrict cinema goers from carrying any food articles and water inside the cinema hall.” Film industry owners appealed to the Supreme Court after the Judgements were contested.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is it appropriate for the theater’s owner to prohibit patrons from bringing food or beverages inside the theatre?
2. What effects is this restriction on food and drink having on public health?
3. Does the theater’s owner restrict moviegoers’ access to Article 21?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The attorney representing the petitioner contended that the theater’s boundaries are private property that is reserved for the ownership of the theatre. The state-created Rule 1975 does not stipulate that patrons of movie theatres should be permitted to bring in outside food and beverages.
2. The practitioner added that one is compelled to purchase meals or go to the theatre. Regarding drinking water, within the confines of the theatres, a sufficient supply of clean drinking water is offered at no cost by water coolers.
3. The practitioner additionally contended that infants and toddlers whose parents are permitted to bring a fair amount of food or drinks are exempt from the ban on bringing in outside food or beverages.
4. The movie tickets that the petitioner’s theatre gives to patrons specify that outside food and beverages, as well as bottles, are not permitted within the theatre. The cinema has entry rights mentioned on the tickets as well.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. Speaking on behalf of the case, a senior practitioner stated that, absent any printed restrictions on the ticket, a moviegoer’s ability to bring food or beverages into the theatre is unaffected by the contract the theatre issues with its patrons.
2. The practitioner went on to say that because of the cinema’s ban, patrons are forced to pay exorbitant costs for food and beverages, which causes them great trouble. There is no prohibition on bringing outside food or beverages inside the theatre premises in the 1975 rule.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court ruled that the J&K HC erred in ruling that such movie theatres could not forbid patrons from bringing in outside food.

With the conclusion that “Like with any other business, the [cinema-hall owner] is entitled to determine the business model… and give effect to their conceptions of the economic viability of a… business model,” the judgement is categorically protective of the A.19(1)(g) right to continue operating. [She] is allowed to control the conditions [of] sale and decide whether to put up… counters for the sale of [F&B].

The Court also has a great understanding of business, particularly when it comes to the movie theatre industry. It holds that movie theatres should now be viewed as “entertainment centres” or “entertainment bundles,” rather than just places to watch movies. “[o]f late, movie halls are not… envisaged solely as places where movies are screened,” the Court stated. [as]… Part of the available entertainment package includes the selling of… [F&B]. Put differently, it serves as both a restaurant and a movie theatre.

Ultimately, the Court found a humorously straightforward middle ground between conflicting claims regarding fundamental rights, ruling that the right of movie theatre owners to sell food of their choosing under A.19(1)(g) outweighed moviegoers’ claims to healthy food under A.21 because patrons could choose not to eat the food that was being served!

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court ruled that filing a lawsuit rather than a writ would have been the appropriate course of action if the initial petitioners had been injured as a result of the movie theater’s ban on bringing food and drink inside.

The Court worked its way through Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which covers citizens’ rights to produce economic advantages subject to reasonable state constraints under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The State, which had created the 1975 Rules to govern the sector, was in charge of regulating the trade and business of running movie theatres, according to the Court. There is no requirement in the same for the proprietor of a movie theatre to permit patrons to bring food or drinks from beyond the theater’s premises. 

The Court further declared that the movie theatre is privately owned by its proprietor, who has full authority to impose terms and conditions as long as they don’t conflict with the public interest, safety, or welfare. He also has the right to set the parameters for when such a transaction should occur and to choose the business plan that will be used.

The Court, hence, stated that if viewers sought to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted.

The J&K High Court was ordered by the State to enforce the cinema hall owners’ directive not to forbid moviegoers from bringing food and drink inside the theater’s premises, and the Supreme Court ruled that this action violated the High Court’s authority under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the Court ordered that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the delivery of clean drinking water within the movie theater’s premises, all without charging a fee. Furthermore, parents or guardians who bring small children or infants inside the theatre should not be objected to if they bring in a reasonable amount of food. The Court continued by asking the proprietors of movie theatres to take into account, on a case-by-case basis, the pleas of these moviegoers who have chronic illnesses and adhere to dietary guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had overreached its jurisdiction under Article 

226 of the Constitution when it ordered movie theatre operators to allow patrons to bring food and beverages inside the theatre.

The Supreme Court ruled that a movie theatre cannot object if a parent is with a baby or toddler. The introduction of such a restriction would impact the legitimate rights of the theatre owner in the absence of a legal rule governing the right to operate movie theatres.

Thus, the owners of movie theatres have the freedom to choose, and everyone who attends is not required to purchase food, with the exception of small children and newborns. The Supreme Court’s decision had a significant impact on the entertainment industries by protecting the livelihood of movie theatre owners while also considering the health and safety of moviegoers.

As a result, the owner of the movie theatre was forced to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling despite all of its contradictions, putting an end to the lengthy legal battle over the terms and circumstances of the theatre.

REFERENCES

1. LIVE LAW IN , https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/38-kc-cinema-v-state-of-jammu-and-kashmir-3-jan-2023-454257.pdf 
2. Case Analysis – KC Cinema v. J&k – Saakshya Law 
3. EXPLAINED| Why Supreme Court finds no fault in cinema hall owners prohibiting outside food and beverages | SCC Blog (scconline.com) 
4. K.C. Cinema (Corret Name K.C. … vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 25 January, 2019 (indiankanoon.org) 

This Article is written by Yashi Gupta student of Government Law College, University of Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.