On September 16, the Karnataka High Court became the stage for a legal dialogue as multiplex chains and production houses, including Hombale Films, challenged the state’s order on cinema ticket pricing. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the multiplexes, led the charge. He argued that the government’s move to fix a uniform ceiling of Rs 200 was “arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of equality and freedom of expression.” He reminded the bench that a similar order passed in 2017 had been struck down by the court, stressing: “Buying a ticket is the consumer’s choice. The government cannot intrude, particularly when crores have been invested in creating premium cinema experiences.”
Supporting the multiplexes, senior counsel Udaya Holla pointed to regional disparities: “Land and property values in Bengaluru are vastly different from smaller towns. The state ignored this economic reality.”
Advocate Dhyan Chinappa, representing Hombale Films, added that the decision was “reckless and uninformed,” noting the scale of investment and effort behind productions like Kantara. Advocate DR Ravishankar further pressed that the cap had “no statutory backing” and violated the rights of the petitioners.
The state stood its ground. Advocate General Ismail Jabeerullah defended the move as a well-considered policy decision, explaining that the proposal was part of the Budget and finalised after considering objections. Counsel V Lakshminarayan, appearing for the Film Chamber, echoed this, stating: “The reduction was made at the Chamber’s own request, in the interest of audiences.”
After hours of back-and-forth, Justice Ravi V Hosmani reserved the order, keeping the industry in suspense over what could be a landmark decision for cinema economics in Karnataka.
Meanwhile, the Film Chamber convened a press conference, where its president, Narasimhulu, openly condemned the stance taken by these production houses. He questioned the logic behind their opposition, particularly directing a few pointed queries at Hombale Films, asking why a studio that had risen to national prominence was resisting a move aimed at making cinema more affordable to the public.