Judicial Review on Extended Advertisements in Movie Theatres: A Consumer Rights Perspective

 

Judicial Review on Extended Advertisements in Movie Theatres: A Consumer Rights Perspective

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the prolonged display of advertisements in multiplex cinemas, which allegedly causes inconvenience to moviegoers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh deliberated on the issue and directed the authorities to engage in meaningful policy discussions before considering judicial intervention. The Court observed that time is a valuable resource, emphasizing the need for balanced policy measures.

Background of the Petition

The petitioner, a law student, raised concerns over the common practice of multiplex cinemas displaying extended advertisements before the commencement of movies. This practice, according to the petitioner, results in undue delays beyond the scheduled movie start time mentioned on tickets. The plea argued that moviegoers are involuntarily subjected to commercial content, thereby creating a "captive audience" situation, which affects their freedom of choice and disrupts personal schedules.

The petition cited I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to choose under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on this precedent, the petitioner contended that compelling audiences to watch prolonged advertisements infringes upon their rights. Additionally, reference was made to the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arguing that this practice constitutes an unfair trade practice, warranting regulatory intervention.

Key Reliefs Sought

The petitioner urged the Court to consider the following reliefs:

1. Regulatory Mandates: A directive to the relevant authorities to frame and enforce guidelines ensuring strict adherence to advertised movie showtimes.
2. Ticket Transparency: A requirement for cinema operators to specify two distinct timings on tickets—one for theatre entry and another for the actual start of the movie.
3. Action Against Violations: Directions to impose penalties or sanctions against multiplexes engaging in unfair trade practices.
4. Broader Consumer Protection Measures: Any other relief deemed just and necessary in the interest of public convenience and fair trade principles.

 

 

Opposition by the Respondents

The Union of India, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, opposed the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the matter fell within the purview of administrative policy rather than judicial adjudication. The State Government also resisted the petition, asserting that such commercial practices require a policy-level response rather than a judicial directive.

High Court’s Observations and Ruling

After hearing both parties, the High Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but held that the issue was not ripe for judicial adjudication at this stage. The Court emphasized that such matters necessitate extensive consultations among various stakeholders, including regulatory authorities, industry representatives, and consumer rights organizations, before any legal mandates can be imposed.

The Bench opined that objectivity in policymaking could only be ensured through structured deliberations. Thus, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, for further consideration. The authorities were instructed to engage in comprehensive discussions and examine possible regulatory measures before taking any concrete action.

Significance of the Judgment

The Court’s ruling does not immediately impose any legal restrictions on multiplex operators but indicates the potential for future regulatory reforms. It reinforces the principle that commercial interests must be balanced with consumer rights and fair trade practices.

Potential Implications and Future Developments

Following the Court’s directive, regulatory authorities may consider implementing measures such as:

• Mandatory Disclosure: Enforcing clear display of separate entry and movie start times on tickets.
• Advertisement Duration Limits: Introducing reasonable limits on the duration of pre-movie advertisements to prevent excessive delays.
• Enhanced Consumer Awareness: Launching initiatives to educate consumers about their rights regarding fair trade practices in cinema halls.

Should the authorities fail to take meaningful action, the matter could be revisited through further legal proceedings, potentially leading to judicial intervention in the future.

Conclusion

While the Court has refrained from issuing immediate directives, the matter remains open for further policy evaluation. This case highlights the intersection of consumer rights and commercial practices in the entertainment industry. The emphasis on time as a valuable resource underscores the necessity for regulatory measures that protect consumer interests while allowing businesses to operate fairly. It remains to be seen whether the authorities will proactively address these concerns or if future judicial scrutiny will be required to ensure compliance with fair trade principles.