Appellant(s)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/alleged-misuse-of-official-position-courts-legal-analysis/
Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors….Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal
No 78 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 20904 of 2018) Civil Appeal No 79 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)
No 21924 of 2018) Transferred Case No 28 of 2019 Transferred Case
No 29 of 2019 A. A public interest litigation was instituted before the High Court by two practicing advocates with the grievance that cinema theatres in Jammu and Kashmir were prohibiting movie goers from bringing eatables inside cinema halls. As a consequence of the prohibition which is imposed by cinema hall owners, viewers are compelled to purchase food of such nature as is offered for sale within the precincts of the theatre; c.
The 1975 Rules which have been framed by the State Government do not provide that the movie goer should be allowed to bring eatables or beverages from outside into the precincts of the cinema hall; 6 c. The cinema tickets issued by the appellant theatre in Civil Appeal
No 78 of 2023 to the movie goers stipulate that eatables from outside as well as bottles (empty or filled) are not allowed inside the cinema hall. As a consequence of the prohibition which is imposed by the cinema hall, the movie goers are placed at a substantial inconvenience since they are required to purchase food and beverages at exorbitant rates within the movie halls; and c. The plaintiff had not seen the condition regarding the defendant’s liability for any articles deposited, either on the ticket or on the placard on the wall. One of the conditions was “ The proprietors will not hold themselves responsible for articles lost or stolen, unless handed to the manageress for safe custody.” The plaintiff’s possessions were later stolen from her room. The defendant argued that it would not be liable for the loss of the car because the plaintiff’s agent was aware of the terms and conditions in the course of their dealings with one another. The court considered whether a particular term which was intended by one of the parties to form a part of the contract, would in actuality form a part of the contract and bind the other party, thereby exempting the first party from liability for the loss suffered.
Similarly, this Court is not called upon to decide whether Respondents 3 and 4 suffered any injury due to the enforcement of the prohibition on outside food and whether they are entitled to damages, as a result of the injury suffered. Rather, this Court will evaluate whether this was a case fit for the exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The right recognized in Article 19(1)(g) is not an unfettered right and the state may impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, in terms of Article 19(6).
The rule making power of the state must be exercised consistent with the fundamental right of the cinema hall owner to carry on a legitimate occupation, trade, or business within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The owner of a cinema hall is entitled to determine whether she will set up or engage an entity for setting up counters for the sale of food and beverages and to regulate the terms on which such sale should take place. In other words, a movie hall is not a movie hall alone but also doubles up as an eatery when food and beverages are sold within its premises. The second level of argumentation in the judgment of the High Court is that the prohibition in question impinges upon the right to choice of food, the right not to eat “junk” food, and the right to good health.
Whether or not to purchase food or beverages after gaining admission to the cinema hall is entirely within the choice of the movie goer. We are therefore of the view that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction 16 under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the cinema hall owners not to prohibit movie goers from carrying eatables and beverages from outside within the precincts of a cinema hall and by directing the state to enforce this direction to the cinema hall owners. (supra) is not only to assess whether the parties have unequal bargaining power relative to one another but also to ascertain whether a contractual term or a contract is unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable. While movie goers may have no choice but to sign on the proverbial dotted line (and thereby not carry any food of their own into the theatre) in order to enter the cinema hall and watch a movie of their choice, this does not by itself render the condition of entry unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable.
This being the case, movie goers are bound by the condition of entry determined by the theatre owners in the instant case i.e., the prohibition on carrying food and beverages from outside into the precincts of the movie hall.
The remaining directions of the High Court do not form the subject matter of the appeals and are, therefore, not dealt with in the present judgment. In view of the judgment delivered above in Civil Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-analysis-on-compliance-with-resolution-plan-conditions/
No 77 of 2023, the writ petitions transferred from the High Court of Delhi in TC (C) No 28 of 2019 and the Bombay High Court in TC (C)
Case Title: K.C. CINEMA (CORRET NAME K.C. THEATRE) Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (2023 INSC 6)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000077-000077 / 2023
