Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swati Agrawal vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4471
1 WP-3290-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3290 of 2025
SWATI AGRAWAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi-Advocate for petitioner along with petitioner.
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar-Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1/UOI.
Shri A.K. Nirankari-Government Advocate for respondent No.2&3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
Heard on admission.
2. The instant petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India (in the nature of Public Interest Litigation) seeking
following reliefs:-
"11.1 The writ of madamus, prohibition or any
other writ may kindly be issued in the present matter.
11.2 Respondent No.1 to 3 or the appropriate
authorities may kindly be directed to frame and
implement appropriate guidelines or rules mandating
that all movie theatres across India strictly adhere to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4471
2 WP-3290-2025
advertised showtime on movie tickets.
11.3 In the alternative, Respondent No.5 to 9 may
kindly be directed to clearly specify two separate
timings on the ticket: one for the opening of the theatre
for entry and another for the start of the movie show.
11.4 Direct Respondent No. to 3 take necessary
action against the Respondents 5 to 9 for engaging in
unfair trade practices, and to impose penalties or
sanctions as deemed appropriate in accordance with
law.
11.5 Allow the cost of petition.
11.6 Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3. Petitioner is a law student pursuing his Bachelor of Law at Gwalior.
She is crestfallen by the modus operandi of multiplex cinemas; wherein,
these cinemas put advertisements rolling for more than the stipulated time
and cause inconvenience to moviegoers. On tickets, time for movie is
mentioned but when moviegoer goes to movie-hall, then movie starts at
much later point of time and this period is consumed in displaying
advertisements. If time is correctly mentioned over the ticket, then person can
make his/her schedule accordingly, avoiding anxiety and rush to reach
movie-hall.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner raised the point of 'Concept of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4471
3 WP-3290-2025
Captive Audience'. According to her, by prolonging the advertisement trail,
time for watching movie is extended. The time which is consumed to display
advertisements is the time during which a person who is watching movie is
treated as 'Captive Audience'. Whether he likes or not, he has to go through
the agony of sitting in the hall waiting for movie to start. Learned counsel for
petitioner, through various provisions of law including Cinematograph Act,
1952 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as Article 21 of
Constitution of India, asserts that such unfair trade practice ought to be
stopped. Petitioner fairly submits that she is not against displaying of
advertisements but wants movie exhibitors to display correct time for start of
movie so that audience may adjust their time schedule accordingly. If
anybody wants to see advertisements (trailers/teasers included), then he/she
can certainly is at liberty to observe.
5. Petitioner further refers that in State of Connecticut (USA), an Act
is under contemplation requiring scheduled start time disclosures in motion
pictures advertisements. Therefore, suitable provisions be incorporated in
this regard in India also. Petitioner preferred a detailed representation vide
Annexure-P/7 address to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, New Delhi in this regard. She seeks thoughtful consideration
over said representation.
6. Petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in
the case of I. R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs vs. State of T.N. reported in (2007) 2
SCC 1 to rely upon 'Right to Choose' as a Fundamental Right and as one of
the attributes of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4471
4 WP-3290-2025
7. Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Deputy Solicitor General for
respondent/UOI opposed the prayer regarding issuance of notice. According
to him, this petition is not maintainable.
8. Shri A.K. Nirankari, Government Advocate for respondents/State
also opposed the prayer.
9 . Heard.
10. After considering the rival submissions and going through the
representation (Annexure-P/7) referred by petitioner which is addressed to
Principal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi
and the issue raised, it appears that issue at present is not riped for
adjudication before this Court. It is to be discussed and decided at
policymaking stage as well as at the stage of administrative decision-making
so that multiple stakeholders involved into it, may be consulted and due
deliberations/discussions be carried out at appropriate level by the concerned
authorities. Thereafter, if required, appropriate decision/guidelines be
prepared and passed.
11. At present, the Court does not intent to enter into the arena of
subjectivity. Objectivity can only be ensured once all stakeholders are
discussed on this issue. Therefore, respondent No.1 has to take call in this
regard.
12. In view of the above discussion, petitioner is at liberty to submit
copy of petition along with her representation in detail, delineating the issue
objectively. If such representation and documents are preferred by petitioner
before the concerned authority, then the authority shall objectively discuss
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4471
5 WP-3290-2025
and decide the issue in accordance with law, in view of suggestions received
from different stakeholders.
13. Before parting, this Court expects the authorities to engage in
meaningful discussion with all stakeholders because one can not forget that
"Time is a valuable Resource " and how the divergent views can be
reconciled, is to be seen by the respondents.
14. With aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case and merit of the issue has to be decided by the concerned
authorities only.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
