Holding

In the absence of any statutory provision obligating cinema owners to permit outside food, a High Court cannot, under Article 226, compel such owners to do so, as the prohibition is a lawful condition of entry within the owners’ Article 19(1)(g) rights.

Summary

A public interest litigation was filed in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court alleging that cinema halls prohibited movie‑goers from bringing their own food and beverages, forcing them to purchase expensive and possibly unhealthy items. The High Court directed cinema owners not to prohibit outside food, invoking the right to choice of food under Article 21. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could issue such a direction under Article 226 in the absence of any statutory provision requiring owners to allow outside food. The Court held that the Jammu & Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1975 and other cinematograph statutes contain no mandate to permit outside food, and that cinema owners, as private proprietors, may impose reasonable entry conditions under their Article 19(1)(g) right. The prohibition was not contrary to public interest, safety or welfare, nor was it an unfair or unreasonable contract term under the Central Inland test. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction and allowed the appeals, while dismissing the transferred writ petitions.

Issues considered

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct cinema hall owners to allow outside food in the absence of a statutory requirement.
Whether a prohibition on outside food by cinema owners violates the fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether the term prohibiting outside food constitutes an unfair or unreasonable contract clause under the test laid down in Central Inland Water Transport Corp. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly.
Whether the Jammu & Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1975 and related cinematograph legislation preclude the High Court’s direction.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Article 226Article 19(1)(g)Article 21cinema regulationpublic interest litigationunfair contract clausecontractual termsright to foodJammu and Kashmir Cinemas Regulation Rules 1975writ jurisdictionconsumer rights

Judgment

572 [2023]
SUPREME COURT 6 S.C.R. 572
REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE)
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS
(Civil Appeal No 77 of 2023)
B JANUARY 03, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Constitution of India – Article 226, 19(1)(g) – PIL was filed
C with the grievance that cinema theatres in J&K were prohibiting
movie goers from bringing eatables inside cinema halls – High Court
inter alia directed the Multiplexes/Cinema Halls Owners of the State
of J&K not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers from carrying his/her
own food articles and water inside the theatre – Legality of – Held:
Trade and business of operating cinema theatres is subject to
D regulation by the State – In the present case, State Government had
framed the 1975 Rules to regulate the industry– In the absence of a
specific mandate in the 1975 Rules (or any other applicable law) in
this regard, High Court was not justified in issuing a direction
prohibiting theatre owners from disallowing food and beverages to
E be brought in by persons entering a movie theatre who enter it for
viewing a film – Cinema hall is a private property of the owner of
the hall – The owner of the hall is entitled to stipulate terms and
conditions so long as they are not contrary to public interest, safety
and welfare – A prohibition on carrying food and beverages from
outside into the precincts of the movie hall is not contrary to public
F interest, safety or welfare – Further, whether or not to watch a movie
is entirely within the choice of viewers – If viewers seek to enter a
cinema hall, they must abide by the terms and conditions subject to
which entry is granted – The condition of entry is imposed as a
direct result of the exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry
G on a business or trade u/Article 19(1)(g) – High Court transgressed
its jurisdiction u/Article 226 by issuing the impugned direction –
Impugned judgment in regard to the said direction set aside – Jammu
and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1975 – Cinematograph
Act 1952 – Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983 – Jammu and
Kashmir Cinematograph Act 1989 – Jammu and Kashmir
H Cinematograph Rules 1989.
572
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 573
AND KASHMIR

Contract – Unfair and unreasonable contract/clause in a A
contract – Test laid down in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn.
case – Held: When one party has unequal bargaining power relative
to the other party, any terms and conditions which are unreasonable
may not be enforced as against the party with lower bargaining
power – Central Inland held that whether parties can be said to have
B
unequal bargaining power and whether a bargain is unfair or
unreasonable must be decided on the facts and circumstances of
each case – The test in Central Inland 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 – A contract (or a term in C
a contract) can be said to be unfair or unreasonable if it is one-
sided or devoid of any commercial logic – However, in the present
case, although theatre owners may unilaterally determine the
conditions of entry into cinema hall, the condition imposed in this
instance is not unfair, unreasonable or unconscionable – Jammu
D
and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1975.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The trade and business of operating cinema
theatres is subject to regulation by the state. In this case, the
State Government has framed the 1975 Rules to regulate the E
industry. Admittedly, the 1975 Rules do not contain a rule
compelling the owner of a cinema theatre to allow a movie goer
to bring food or beverages from outside within the precincts of
the theatre. Similarly, other enactments and rules which regulate
the industry, namely, the Cinematograph Act 1952, the F
Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983, the Jammu and
Kashmir Cinematograph Act 1989, and the Jammu and Kashmir
Cinematograph Rules 1989 do not contain a provision which
requires theatre owners to permit movie goers to carry food and
beverages of their own into the cinema hall. The rule making
power of the state must be exercised consistent with the G
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 legislature’s omission of a
provision requiring the cinema owner to allow eatables and
beverages to be brought from outside is significant. In the absence H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A of a specific mandate in the 1975 Rules (or any other applicable
law) in this regard, the High Court was not justified in issuing a
direction prohibiting theatre owners from disallowing food and
beverages to be brought in by persons entering a movie theatre
who enter it for viewing a film. The High Court has erred in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
B
Constitution. The exercise of its jurisdiction was not consistent
with the provisions of the enactments regulating movie theatres.
[Paras 20, 22][583-G-H; 584-A-C, F-G]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC
C 536 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585 – followed.
1.2 The cinema hall is a private property of the owner of
the hall. The owner of the hall is entitled to stipulate terms and
conditions so long as they are not contrary to public interest,
safety and welfare. Like with any other business, the proprietor
D or the management is entitled to determine the business model
that is to be followed and to give effect to their own conceptions
of the economic viability of a particular business model. 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
E take place. A prohibition on carrying food and beverages from
outside into the precincts of the movie hall is not contrary to
public interest, safety or welfare. 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. Patrons of a movie hall cannot demand
F to bring their own food to eat there when a condition to the contrary
is enforced by the cinema hall owners. This would be akin to
permitting a customer who visits a restaurant to carry their own
food to that restaurant and eat it within the premises of that
restaurant. [Paras 23, 24][584-G-H; 585-A-E]

G 1.3 Whether or not to purchase food or beverages after
gaining admission to the cinema hall is entirely within the choice
of the movie goer. Viewers visit cinema halls for the purpose of
entertainment. The transaction of purchasing a ticket permits
them to view the movie they have opted to watch. If the food and

H
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 575
AND KASHMIR

beverages on sale at the movie hall are not to their taste, they A
are free to refrain from purchasing them. In this way, they are not
being prevented from exercising their right to choice of food.
Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice of
viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide
by the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted.
B
Having reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre
owners to determine whether food from outside the precincts of
the cinema hall should be permitted to be carried inside. The
High Court transgressed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution by directing the cinema hall owners not to prohibit
movie goers from carrying eatables and beverages from outside C
within the precincts of a cinema hall and by directing the state to
enforce this direction to the cinema hall owners. Absent a
statutory regulation which regulates the right to conduct the
business of operating a cinema hall, the imposition of such a
restraint would affect the legitimate rights of a theatre owner.
D
The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the exercise
of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic
of prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the
cinema hall is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business
– the sale of food and beverages. If business owners are not E
permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in
accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding
halt. [Paras 26–28, 31][586-B-F; 587-G-H]
1.4 For movie goers with chronic diseases who may have
received dietary instructions from their doctors or who may F
otherwise be under dietary restrictions due to their medical
condition, cinema hall owners are requested to consider requests
from such movie goers on a case-by-case basis. [Para 34][588-G]
1.5 The impugned judgment and order of the High Court in
regard to direction (i) is set aside. [Para 35][588-H] G

Parker v. The South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2 CDP
416; Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 KB 523;
McCutcheon v. David Macbrayne Ltd (1964) 1 WLR

H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 125; Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1970) EWCA
Civ 2 – distinguished.
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo
Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156: [1986] 2 SCR 278
– relied on.
B
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly,
(2016) 6 SCC 82 : [2016] 6 SCR 611; IREO Grace
Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC
241; Jacob Punnen v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2022) 3 SCC 655 – referred to.
C
Case Law Reference
[2016] 6 SCR 611 referred to Para 19
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585 followed Para 21
D [1986] 2 SCR 278 relied on Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.77 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2018 of the High Court
E of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in PIL No.11 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.78 And 79 Of 2023, Transferred Case Nos.28
And 29 of 2019
F
K. V. Viswanathan, Niranjan Reddy, Bimal Roy Jad, Sr. Advs.,
Abhinav Shrivastava, Rahul Gupta, R. P. Singh, Shivang Rawat, Ms
Radhika Jalan, Sumeer Sodhi, Arjun Nanda, Sahil Narang, Dhritiman
Roy, Madhavam Sharma, Ayushman Kacker, Ms. Sania Abbasi, Akhila,
M/s. Khaitan & Co., Shivam Sharma, Diwas Kumar, Ms. Twinkle, Raj
G Kishor Choudhary, Munawwar Naseem, Aditya Sharma, Dr. Nilakshi
Choudhury, Atul Mahan, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Ms. Taruna
Ardhendumauli Prasad, Mrs. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Shailesh Madiyal,
Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar, Vinayaka. S. Pandit, Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti
Dadheech, Advs. for the appearing parties.
H
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 577
AND KASHMIR

By Courts Motion A
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Table of Contents*
A. Background................................................................... 3
B
B. Cases relied upon by the respondents.............................7
C. The High Court has transgressed its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.................................11
D. Parting remarks.......................................................... 19 C
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
Civil Appeal Nos 77, 78 and 79 of 2023
1. Leave granted.
A. Background D

2. This batch of appeals arises from a judgment dated 18 July
2018 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. 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 E
cinema halls. In this context, it was averred that cinema owners paste a
notice outside the hall indicating the prohibition and that security personnel
search the belongings of every cinema goer with a view to enforce the
prohibition. In the event that movie goers are found in possession of
eatables, they are (it was alleged) prevented from entering the cinema
F
hall.
3. The submission which was urged before the High Court was
that, as a consequence of the prohibition, movie goers are compelled to
consume food and beverages which are made available within the
precincts of cinema halls resulting in the audience being required to
G
purchase food at “highly exorbitant rates.” Moreover, it was submitted
that the food which is sold is not necessarily of a nutritious quality and
that persons with chronic diseases (such as diabetes) may be required
to eat a specific type of food which would not be available at the movie
hall.
*Ed. Note : Pagination in the Table of Contents is as per the original judgment. H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 4. The High Court was persuaded to grant relief in the public
interest litigation on the basis of its findings in paragraph 6, which is
extracted below:
“6. A perusal of these rules reveals that no where it has been
provided that cinemagoers can be prohibited from carrying their
B own food articles and water bottles to multiplexes or private vendors
are allowed to sell food inside such multiplexes/cinema hall
premises at highly exorbitant prices. Therefore, in absence of any
such provision, cinema goers cannot be forced or compelled by
the multiplexes/cinema hall owners to purchase food and water
from theatre premises nor they can be prohibited from carrying
C
food items into malls and multiplexes from outside. Even the
viewers, who come along with their infants/babies, also need milk
to feed them because they cannot be kept empty stomach for
about three long hours. The restrictions on bringing outside food
to theatres and compelling/forcing to purchase junk food, sold at
D the food stalls inside theatre premises, that too at exorbitant rates,
particularly affect young generation, senior citizens, diabetic
patients and those who cannot eat for medical reasons. Such kind
of acts on the part of Multiplex/Cinema Hall owners are against
the right to choice of food, including the right not to eat junk food
E and right to good health, which comes under the purview of Article
21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing protection of life and
personal liberty of every citizen.”
5. The High Court noted that the State Government had notified
the Jammu and Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1975.1 The High
F Court held that:
a. The 1975 Rules do not prohibit cinema goers from carrying
their own food articles and water bottles to multiplexes or
cinema halls;
b. As a consequence of the prohibition which is imposed by
G cinema hall owners, viewers are compelled to purchase food
of such nature as is offered for sale within the precincts of
the theatre;

1
“1975 Rules”
H
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 579
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

c. Infants who are required to be fed at periodic intervals A
cannot as a consequence, be given food by accompanying
parents or guardians;
d. Viewers are compelled to purchase “junk” food at the food
stalls within the theatre and are required to pay exorbitant
charges for the food which is purchased. This particularly B
affects the younger generation, senior citizens, patients with
diabetes, and those who are unable to eat the food sold
within the theatre premises for medical reasons; and
e. The prohibition on carrying outside food and beverages into
the movie theatre violates the right to choice of food, C
including the right not to eat “junk” food and the right to
good health, under Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. The High Court, while accepting the grievances, issued a slew
of directions in the impugned judgment and order. The challenge to the
judgment of the High Court is confined to direction (i) which is extracted D
below:
“i. Multiplexes/Cinema Halls Owners of the State of J&K are
directed not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers henceforth from
carrying his/her own food articles and water inside the theatre.”
7. Mr K V Viswanathan, senior counsel, appearing with Mr E
Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel and Mr Sumeer Sodhi, on behalf of the
appellants submitted that:
a. The precincts of a cinema hall constitute private property
into which admission is reserved by the owner of the theatre;
b. The 1975 Rules which have been framed by the State F
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;
c. There is no compulsion on any person either to visit the
theatre or to purchase food within the precincts of the theatre G
once they have bought a ticket to view a movie;
d. As regards the sale of drinking water, cinema halls make
adequate provisions to ensure that hygienic drinking water
is made available free of cost within the precincts of the
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A movie theatre for movie goers so that they are not compelled
to pay for packaged drinking water;
e. As a matter of practice, the prohibition of bringing food or
beverages from outside the hall is not enforced in the case
of infants and babies, for whom the parents or
B accompanying guardians are allowed to bring a reasonable
quantity of food or beverages which may be required for
the duration of their visit to the theatre; and
f. The cinema tickets issued by the appellant theatre in Civil
Appeal No. 78 of 2023 to the movie goers stipulate that
C eatables from outside as well as bottles (empty or filled)
are not allowed inside the cinema hall. The tickets also
mention that the cinema reserves the right of admission.
8. On the other hand, Mr Bimal Roy Jad, senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the original petitioners before the High Court (Respondents
D No. 3 and 4 in these proceedings), submitted that:
a. The cinema ticket which is issued by the cinema hall
represents a contract with the movie goer and in the absence
of any prohibition on the printed terms of the ticket, a movie
goer cannot be prevented from bringing eatables or
E beverages inside the theatre;
b. 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
F c. The 1975 Rules do not contain any prohibition on bringing
food or beverages from outside within the precincts of the
cinema halls.
B. Cases relied upon by the respondents
9. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the following judgments
G in support of the directions issued in the impugned judgment:
a. Parker v. The South Eastern Railway Co (1877) 2
CDP 416;
b. Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 KB 523;
H
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 581
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

c. McCutcheon v. David Macbrayne Ltd (1964) 1 A
WLR 125; and
d. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1970) EWCA
Civ 2.
10. In order to understand whether the rulings in these judgments
are applicable to the case before us, it is necessary to advert to the B
context in which they originated, the question(s) of law which fell for the
court’s determination, and the relief claimed therein.
11. In Parker’s case (supra), the plaintiff deposited some of his
belongings with the cloakroom at a railway station. At the time of
depositing them, he received a ticket which had the words “see back” C
printed on it. The reverse side of the ticket contained a term stating, “the
company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the
value of 10l.” A placard with the same condition printed on it was also
hung on the wall. The plaintiff’s belongings were lost or stolen and he
brought an action against the defendant for the value of the lost articles. D
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. The question before the court in that case was whether the
respondent was liable for the loss of the plaintiff’s belongings.
12. In Olley’s case (supra), the plaintiff was a paying guest in E
the defendant’s hotel. After paying for the room, she received her keys
and went to her room. There, a notice containing numerous terms and
conditions was displayed. 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 plaintiff instituted a suit against the F
defendant and claimed the value of the goods stolen from her. The court
was required to adjudicate whether the defendant could rely on the terms
of a contract to exempt itself from liability under common law. In other
words, the question that arose for determination was whether the
defendant was responsible for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. G
13. In McCutcheon’s case (supra), the plaintiff engaged an agent
to have his car delivered to another town by sea. The agent paid the
defendant, received a receipt, and delivered the car. The car was loaded
onto the ship which set sail. Before it could reach its destination, however,
it sank due to the negligence of the defendant’s employees. The plaintiff H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A sued the defendant for the value of his car. The defendant disclaimed
liability on the ground that it usually asked customers to sign a risk note
which contained certain terms and conditions regarding its liability for
damage to the goods shipped by customers. No such risk note was signed
by the plaintiff’s agent in this case, but he had signed risk notes on
B previous occasions when he had used the defendant’s shipping services.
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. In this case, too, the question
which arose for the court’s consideration was whether the defendant
could be held liable for the loss of the plaintiff’s car.
C
14. Finally, in Thornton’s case (supra), the plaintiff drove to an
automatic car park owned by the defendant. The charges for availing of
this service were displayed outside the car park. The plaintiff drove to
the entrance and a machine dispensed a ticket which said, “This ticket
is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the
D premises.” The plaintiff parked his car in the car park. When he later
returned there to collect his car, he suffered an accident and was severely
injured. He instituted proceedings against the defendant seeking damages
for his injuries. The question before the court was whether the defendant
would be liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
E
15. All four cases concern the issue of whether liability can be
affixed on one of the parties based on the terms and conditions of the
contract in question. Each of the decisions addresses when the contract
was entered into and what the terms of the contract were. The court
considered whether a particular term which was intended by one of the
F 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.
16. The case before us differs from the four cases relied upon by
the respondents in that the original petitioners before the High Court did
G not file a suit for damages or other relief for a loss or injury suffered by
them. They instituted a Public Interest Litigation and invoked the High
Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. They claimed
the following relief in their petition before the High Court:
“(ii) Writ of prohibition prohibiting Respondents No. 3 – 6 from
H restraining the movie goers for taking with them outside eatables
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 583
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

inside Cinema Halls required to be consumed during the time they A
see the feature film in the cinema hall”
17. By instituting a writ petition, Respondents 3 and 4 have invited
an adjudication on whether the terms of entry determined and enforced
by theatre owners are just and fair. The test to be applied by this Court
would therefore not address which of the terms and conditions between B
the theatre owners and the movie goers are binding upon them and
whether the prohibition on carrying outside food within the theatre
premises is a binding term. 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 C
will evaluate whether this was a case fit for the exercise of the High
Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. If it was the case of Respondents 3 and 4 that they had suffered
some injury due to the prohibition on carrying food and beverages into
the movie hall or that the terms of the contract were made known to D
them only at the time of its enforcement and they sought a refund of the
amount paid for the ticket because they did not assent to such a term or
damages, the proper remedy would be to file a suit and not to seek the
issuance of a writ. The decisions in Parker (supra), Olley (supra),
McCutcheon (supra), and Thornton (supra) which the respondents
rely on do not have a bearing on the issue before this Court i.e., whether E
the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. It is therefore not necessary for this Court to
address itself to the ratio decidendi of these cases any further.
C. The High Court has transgressed its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution F
19. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution recognizes the right of
citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business. This right includes all activities which enable citizens to
generate economic benefits and earn a livelihood.2 The right recognized
in Article 19(1)(g) is not an unfettered right and the state may impose G
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, in terms of Article
19(6).
20. The fundamental aspect which needs to be noted is that the
trade and business of operating cinema theatres is subject to regulation
2
Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. T.N. Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 SCC 82 H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A by the state. In this case, the State Government has framed the 1975
Rules to regulate the industry. Admittedly, the 1975 Rules do not contain
a rule compelling the owner of a cinema theatre to allow a movie goer to
bring food or beverages from outside within the precincts of the theatre.
Similarly, other enactments and rules which regulate the industry, namely,
the Cinematograph Act 1952, the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules
B 1983, the Jammu and Kashmir Cinematograph Act 1989, and the Jammu
and Kashmir Cinematograph Rules 1989 do not contain a provision which
requires theatre owners to permit movie goers to carry food and beverages
of their own into the cinema hall. The rule making power of the state
must be exercised consistent with the fundamental right of the cinema
C hall owner to carry on a legitimate occupation, trade, or business within
the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
21. The majority opinion of a nine judge bench of this Court in
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India3 was authored by Jeevan
Reddy, J. who held that the High Court must have regard to legislative
D intent while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226:
“108 (i). While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article
226 — and of this Court under Article 32 — cannot be
circumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they will
certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by
the provisions of the said Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction
E
consistent with the provisions of the Act … This is for the reason
that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate
the rule of law and not for abrogating it.”
22. The legislature’s omission of a provision requiring the cinema
owner to allow eatables and beverages to be brought from outside is
F significant. In the absence of a specific mandate in the 1975 Rules (or
any other applicable law) in this regard, the High Court was not justified
in issuing a direction prohibiting theatre owners from disallowing food
and beverages to be brought in by persons entering a movie theatre who
enter it for viewing a film. The High Court has erred in the exercise of
G its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The exercise of
its jurisdiction was not consistent with the provisions of the enactments
regulating movie theatres.
23. The cinema hall is a private property of the owner of the hall.
The owner of the hall is entitled to stipulate terms and conditions so long
3
H (1997) 5 SCC 536
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 585
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

as they are not contrary to public interest, safety and welfare. Like with A
any other business, the proprietor or the management is entitled to
determine the business model that is to be followed and to give effect to
their own conceptions of the economic viability of a particular business
model. 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
B
and beverages and to regulate the terms on which such sale should take
place. A prohibition on carrying food and beverages from outside into
the precincts of the movie hall is not contrary to public interest, safety or
welfare.
24. Of late, multiplexes or movie halls are not operated or envisaged
solely as places where movies are screened. A more accurate C
characterization of a movie hall is as an entertainment centre or as an
entertainment bundle. The sale of different kinds of food and beverages
forms a portion of the entire package of entertainment available at the
cinema hall. 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 D
its premises. Viewed from this lens, it is immediately evident that patrons
of a movie hall cannot demand to bring their own food to eat there when
a condition to the contrary is enforced by the cinema hall owners. This
would be akin to permitting a customer who visits a restaurant to carry
their own food to that restaurant and eat it within the premises of that
restaurant. E

25. Respondents 3 and 4 have urged that they ought to be permitted
to carry their own food because the cinema halls sell exorbitantly priced
food and beverages, which are also not nutritious. The High Court was
persuaded to issue the direction which has been noted earlier based on
the consideration that what is offered for sale is “junk food”. Theatre F
owners may decide the contents of the menu they offer, similar to
restaurants deciding their menu or similar to theatre owners themselves
deciding which movies to screen. As mentioned above, this is a
commercial decision which the theatre owners are entitled to make.
The price point at which the goods and services will be sold is likewise G
subject to being fixed by the movie theatre. Whether or not the cost of a
good or service is affordable or exorbitant is unrelated to the conditions
of entry enforced by a business.
26. The second level of argumentation in the judgment of the
High Court is that the prohibition in question impinges upon the right to H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A choice of food, the right not to eat “junk” food, and the right to good
health. However, this line of reasoning fails to notice that movie goers
are not compelled to buy food at the cinema hall. Whether or not to
purchase food or beverages after gaining admission to the cinema hall is
entirely within the choice of the movie goer. Viewers visit cinema halls
for the purpose of entertainment. The transaction of purchasing a ticket
B
permits them to view the movie they have opted to watch. If the food
and beverages on sale at the movie hall are not to their taste, they are
free to refrain from purchasing them. In this way, they are not being
prevented from exercising their right to choice of food. We also note
that the right of movie goers to purchase or eat a dish of their choice is
C unfettered outside the confines of privately operated movie theatres
(subject to safety and public welfare).
27. Whether or not to watch a movie is entirely within the choice
of viewers. If viewers seek to enter a cinema hall, they must abide by
the terms and conditions subject to which entry is granted. Having
D reserved the right of admission, it is open to theatre owners to determine
whether food from outside the precincts of the cinema hall should be
permitted to be carried inside.
28. We are therefore of the view that the High Court transgressed
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the cinema
E 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.
Absent a statutory regulation which regulates the right to conduct the
business of operating a cinema hall, the imposition of such a restraint
would affect the legitimate rights of a theatre owner.
F
29. However, this is not to say that the terms and conditions
imposed by cinema owners or other commercial entities bind the
consumer or the customer in every case. As held by a catena of decisions
of this Court, when one party has unequal bargaining power relative to
the other party, any terms and conditions which are unreasonable may
G not be enforced as against the party with lower bargaining power.4 In
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly5,
4
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC
156; IREO Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241; Jacob
Punnen v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 655
5
H (1986) 3 SCC 156
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 587
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

this Court held that whether parties can be said to have unequal bargaining A
power and whether a bargain is unfair or unreasonable must be decided
on the facts and circumstances of each case:
“89. … This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will,
when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable
contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, B
entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining
power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this
type. … It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in
a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of
livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go
without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or C
rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or
to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to
accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair,
unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form
or rules may be. … there can be myriad situations which result in D
unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing
wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases
can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must
judge each case on its own facts and circumstances.”
30. The test in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. (supra) E
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. A contract (or a
term in a contract) can be said to be unfair or unreasonable if it is one-
sided or devoid of any commercial logic. In the present case, although
theatre owners may unilaterally determine the conditions of entry into F
cinema hall, the condition imposed in this instance is not unfair,
unreasonable or unconscionable.
31. The condition of entry is imposed as a direct result of the
exercise of the right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The commercial logic of G
prohibiting movie goers from carrying their own food to the cinema hall
is to stimulate and boost a vital aspect of the business – the sale of food
and beverages. If business owners are not permitted to determine the
various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic
activity would come to a grinding halt. While movie goers may have no H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 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.
32. Most businesses impose some or the other condition which
B the customer may find less than ideal. For instance, many private
museums do not permit customers to take photographs of the objects on
display. This is also true of many clothing boutiques or jewellery stores.
Audience members are often banned from recording musical
performances at concerts. Music festivals, much like movie theatres, do
not permit attendees to carry their own food or beverages to the venue.
C Similar is the case with stand-up comedy shows or plays that are
conducted in collaboration with eateries or bars. Although the customer
is paying for a ticket to watch the music performance (or the stand-up
act or the play, as the case may be), the essence of the business model
is to provide a fillip to the revenue generated by another arm of the
D business. 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.
33. We note that during the course of arguments, statements were
E made on behalf of the appellants that in order to obviate any
inconvenience to movie goers, due arrangements are made for the supply
of hygienic drinking water without levying any charge within the precincts
of the cinema hall. Moreover, it has also been stated that when an infant
or young child accompanies a parent, as a matter of practice, the cinema
hall owners have no objection to a reasonable amount of food or
F beverages being carried inside the cinema hall to serve the nutritional
requirements of the infant or child.
34. As for movie goers with chronic diseases who may have
received dietary instructions from their doctors or who may otherwise
be under dietary restrictions due to their medical condition, we request
G cinema hall owners to consider requests from such movie goers on a
case-by-case basis.
35. In view of the above position, we allow the appeals and set
aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 18 July
2018 in regard to direction (i) which has been referred to above. The
H
K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU 589
AND KASHMIR [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

remaining directions of the High Court do not form the subject matter of A
the appeals and are, therefore, not dealt with in the present judgment.
D. Parting remarks
36. Before concluding, it needs to be noticed that Rule 87 of the
1975 Rules is in the following terms:
B
“87. (i) The licensing authority shall ensure that the sale price of
tickets in all the cinemas of the State holding licence under these
rules in uniform.
(ii) The licensing authority shall ensure that reduced rates are
charged by the licensee for any picture screened for the second C
time in any auditorium.”
37. The validity of Rule 87 was not in challenge before the High
Court. The High Court in paragraph 8(iii) of its judgment issued the
following directions in regard to sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 87:
“iii. The Government of J&K as well as Licensing Authority/every D
District Magistrate in the State is directed to ensure proper
uniformity be maintained with respect to the sale price of tickets
in all the cinemas of the State in terms of Rule 87(i) & (ii) of the
Jammu & Kashmir Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1975.”
38. The above direction of the High Court shall not be construed E
as imposing any requirement over and above Rule 87 as it currently
stands.
39. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
TC (C) Nos 28 of 2019 and 29 of 2019
F
40. In view of the judgment delivered above in Civil Appeal 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) No 29 of
2019 are dismissed. The Transferred Cases are accordingly disposed
of.
G
41. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

H