'Refund Excess Ticket Charges Or Face Action': Madras High Court Warns Cinema Halls
The theatre owners cannot fleece the movie goers by collecting excess amount from them, court said.
Against cinema theatre owners flouting government-fixed ticket rates, the Madras High Court has directed Tamil Nadu authorities to take prompt action against such violators and ensure refund of excess amounts charged from moviegoers.
The order came in a writ petition filed by G Devarajan, who alleged that several cinema theatres across Tamil Nadu were collecting more than the permitted price for tickets, especially during the first four days after a new movie's release. He pointed out that films like 'Vivegam" had seen inflated pricing, in clear violation of government norms.
The petitioner had urged the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing state officials—including Tahsildars, Collectors, and officials from the Commercial Tax and Home Departments—to crack down on this 'cheating practice" and ensure that the overcharged amounts were returned to the public.
During the hearing, the state's Additional Government Pleader informed the bench that a dedicated monitoring committee was already in place. This committee regularly inspects theatres, monitors compliance, and recommends action wherever overcharging is detected.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, however, emphasised that merely forming a committee was not enough. Observing that such violations often occur during the high-demand phase immediately after a film's release, he directed that the committee take active steps whenever complaints are received. The court said that if a theatre is found collecting more than the approved rates, it must not only face appropriate action but also refund the excess collected.
'When the Government has fixed a rate which is revised from time to time, the theatre owners cannot fleece the moviegoers by collecting excess amount," the court stated, while adding that the committee must respond promptly to complaints and enforce the rules strictly.
Justice Venkatesh concluded the proceedings by disposing of the petition but with clear directions for future monitoring. He stated that no costs were being awarded in the case and closed the connected miscellaneous petition as well.
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Why a court ban on encrypted email service Proton Mail has sparked digital privacy fears
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. Many of them told Scroll that the court's ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications. They said the court had erred in blaming encryption for Proton's alleged non-cooperation with the Karnataka police in its investigation into online harassment by anonymous culprits through its email service. What did the High Court order say? The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees. The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail's abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail. This is because, it informed the company, under Swiss law, it could only disclose user data upon receiving a formal legal request from Swiss authorities through established international cooperation channels. The police investigation hit a similar wall. The police told the court that they could not identify the culprit through the mutual legal assistance arrangements between India and Switzerland. However, the judgment didn't clarify what specific steps were taken or where those efforts stalled. Nevertheless, Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a 'menace', he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka. 'The State machinery [is] hamstrung by the absence of enforceable cooperation from Proton AG,' Nagaprasanna observed. 'This Court fails to understand the complacency of the Union of India in not taking action towards blocking the Proton Mail…' Concluding that the court could not remain a 'mute spectator', the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act. 'Troubling precedent' As of July 25, Proton Mail was still accessible in India. While the court's intent to protect the victims of harassment is clear, technology lawyers and digital rights advocates raised concerns about the order's sweeping nature and its wider implications. They argue that blocking an entire service used by many for the criminal acts of a few is a disproportionate response that could undermine digital security for everyone. The order 'sets a troubling precedent,' said Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, a digital civil rights organisation. 'It signals that entire encrypted services can be taken down based on allegations linked to a handful of users.' A ban could lead to a domino effect, warned Apar Gupta, lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. 'Other encrypted platforms could face pressure to weaken their security or risk being blocked,' he explained. 'This approach may inadvertently chill free expression, as journalists, activists and at-risk communities who rely on encrypted communications for safety might feel less secure.' This view was echoed by technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist Mishi Choudhary. 'In today's day of heightened cyber security issues and surveillance, privacy-protecting technologies are more crucial than ever,' she said. Blocking Proton Mail would not eliminate online abuse either, said technologist and interdisciplinary researcher Rohini Lakshané. 'Malicious actors can simply migrate to other encrypted email providers or deploy additional anonymisation techniques,' she said. The fear is that the High Court's order could give cover to authorities to take a heavy-handed approach towards any platform that offers privacy. 'This move will embolden the bureaucracy and the political powers to act first and think later,' cautioned Tanveer Hasan, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, an internet and digital technologies research organisation. As Choudhary noted, 'India cannot be a destination that issues blocking orders at the drop of a hat if investigative authorities aren't able to access some data.' Gupta warned that the order would create legal uncertainty for overseas service providers. 'Those in jurisdictions with strict privacy laws could be caught between home-country obligations and Indian court demands, deterring them from offering services in India,' he said. Encryption versus user identification A key point of contention is the court's conflation of the protection of a message's content with the ability to identify a user. The court identified encryption as a factor for the police's failed investigation – without explaining how. Encrypted services like Proton Mail are prevented from seeing the content of messages sent on their platforms, but may still access user metadata, such as internet protocol address – a unique alphanumerical identifier assigned to each computer connected to the internet – from which an account was created or accessed. Nikhil Narendran, a partner at the law firm Trilegal, argued that the ban was based on a misunderstanding of the technology 'Encryption only protects the content of a message but does not prevent a receiver or sender from disclosing it wilfully,' he explained. 'It also doesn't prevent a company from disclosing user information once the content is disclosed.' This metadata can be a crucial tool for law enforcement to trace the origin of a criminal act. In 2021, Proton Mail handed over the internet protocol address of French Proton Mail users to the French police upon an order by the Swiss government. 'So, the idea that Proton Mail is immune to legal process is simply not true,' Chima said. Sharveya Parasnis, a journalist at the technology policy portal Medianama, questioned the court's invocation of encryption. 'I don't know if the case is about encryption as much as it is about the obligation of foreign companies to comply with Indian law enforcement requests for user data,' he said. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandate that online platforms 'enable the identification' of anyone communicating through the platform upon a government or court order. The right way forward? Experts pointed out that a blanket ban failed the three-part test for restricting fundamental rights laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark privacy judgment in 2018. Any restriction must be lawful, necessary and, crucially, proportionate. 'Here, less intrusive options clearly existed,' Chima said. He and other experts Scroll spoke with argued that instead of resorting to bans, Indian authorities should strengthen and use existing legal channels. India and Switzerland are both signatories to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, a formal mechanism for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations. The treaty should be reformed 'so investigators can lawfully obtain data in a timely manner,' suggested Gupta. 'Regulators can also establish clear, transparent protocols for engaging with encrypted services based abroad, and even update outdated agreements to address modern cybercrime.' Rahul Narayan, a partner at the law firm Chandhiok & Mahajan who has expertise in privacy and data protection, batted for more legislative clarity in such situations. 'Precise parameters for when a service may be blocked should be laid down in a legislation, rather than decided on an ad-hoc basis by courts,' he said.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court quashes dowry harassment case against in-laws, but allows trial against husband
Bengaluru: The high court quashed the proceedings against parents and a relative of a 25-year-old Bengaluru resident in a dowry harassment case. Justice M Nagaprasanna noted the allegations against these individuals lacked merit, particularly as the complainant herself admitted to a secret marriage unknown to the family. The case involves two individuals who met in their college years. The complainant frequently visited the man's residence, occasionally threatening self-harm if marriage was refused. This led to the man's father filing a police complaint on Oct 23, 2021, at Subramanyanagar police station. Following police intervention, the woman provided a written assurance to cease troubling the family. Subsequently, the couple eloped to Hassan, marrying on Jan 12, 2023, with registration completed on Jan 13, 2023. They lived separately, with the family unaware of these developments. The relationship deteriorated shortly after, leading to woman filing a complaint alleging various offences, including forced sexual relations when she was underage, brutal assault post-marriage, and stalking with threats to expose private content which the man allegedly recorded on his mobile. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The complaint also included charges under multiple acts, including SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Pocso Act , Dowry Prohibition Act, Information Technology Act, and various BNS sections. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 World's Prettiest Star In The History Half Eddie Read More Undo The other accused were charged with public abuse under the Atrocities Act. The petitioners contested these allegations, arguing no prima facie case existed. They maintained the marriage was voluntary, and the complaint emerged as retaliation to divorce proceedings. Earlier complaints did not mention sexual assault claims, which were later added, citing incidents from Aug 4, 2019, Sept 4, 2019, and Sept 29, 2019. The court found allegations against petitioners 2 to 4 (parents and relative) lacking substantial evidence and legal basis. Justice Nagaprasanna also observed the requirements for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, particularly regarding public humiliation based on caste, were absent. However, the judge maintained proceedings against the husband, citing serious allegations including Pocso Act violations and rape charges prior to marriage, which necessitate a complete trial.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Karntaka high court notice to National Highways Authority on PIL against illegal toll collection
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has ordered notice to the ministry of road transport and the National Highways Authority of India, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to restrain them from the alleged illegal collection of Rs 40 toll at Nagasandra. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi directed the respondents to submit their response to the PIL filed by advocate AV Amarnathan and posted the matter for hearing on Sept 17. According to the petitioner, he recently shifted his residence to a township located at Dasanapura on Huskur Road. While travelling along the Nelamangala-Bengaluru Road via Nagasandra flyover, a Rs 40 toll charge was collected from him for about 5-km distance from the Parle G factory to Goraguntepalya stretch. He added that when he received a map from Bengaluru North taluk, issued by the survey department, he came to know that the collection of the toll is illegal since the 5-km stretch falls within the city. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru According to him, despite the expiry of the contract period in 2021, the toll plaza is still collecting toll fee through Fastags from every vehicle passing through the road, which connects about 20 districts of Karnataka. Apart from seeking a prayer for restraining the respondents, the petitioner also sought a direction to them to furnish details of the toll collection at Nagasandra toll plaza from 2021 till now.
