Maharashtra cannot ban online ticket charges: PVR, BookMyShow win case
What's the story
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed the Maharashtra government's orders prohibiting convenience fees on online movie ticket bookings. The decision comes as a major relief to PVR Cinemas and BookMyShow, which had questioned the legality of these restrictions. A division bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held on Thursday that the state government did not have legislative power under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act (MED Act) to impose such a ban.
Legal perspective
Ruling on fundamental right to carry on trade
The court stressed that the ban on convenience fees for online bookings violates the fundamental right to carry on a trade or business. This right is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitions were filed by PVR Limited, Big Tree Entertainment (BookMyShow), and other cinema chains against two government orders from 2013 and 2014 prohibiting multiplexes from charging any amount beyond the base ticket price and entertainment duty.
Petitioners' stance
Petitioners stressed a voluntary commercial transaction
The petitioners argued that convenience fees are meant to cover the costs of services such as digital infrastructure, payment gateway charges, and customer support. They also stressed that these payments represent a voluntary commercial transaction between private parties. The bench rejected the state's reliance on provisions of the MED Act and Article 162 of the Constitution, ruling that no section of the Act empowers the State to regulate such commercial arrangements.
Judgment details
Court's observations
The court further clarified that if a customer is willing to pay an additional amount for the convenience of online booking, the government cannot interfere. It also noted that preventing businesses from determining such operational aspects would lead to a "grinding halt" of commerce. While quashing the specific government orders prohibiting convenience fees, the court did not rule on whether the entertainment duty applies to such charges.