Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the latest of the unceasing tensions between the State legislative assembly and the High Court of Bombay, the latter interrogated the law making body on the affidavit it filed regarding the relatively new controversy of the matter of the admittance of outside food in cinema multiplexes. The affidavit in question was filed on behalf of the state government by the deputy secretary of the Home department, Venkatesh Bhat.
For the uninitiated, the original PIL was filed in Bombay High Court by one Jainendra Baxi, through his representing advocate, Aditya Pratap, who protested against the monopoly of cinema endorsed vendors inside the premises of the theatre. This unfair proprietorship was equated to malpractice by the theatre conglomerate who, taking unfair advantage of the situation, charged preposterously high prices for something as simple as a bottle of water. The earnest PIL gained public support and was reasonable, because of which the High Court granted sanction to it. According to the original complaint, consumers bringing food and beverages from outside should not be considered as a threat to security, under whose guise this exploitation started in the first place.
However, The state government replied to the affidavit stating that there is no reason to amend the current regulating law pertaining to this matter (Maharashtra Cinema Rules,1966) due to the opinion of the Director General of Police, who believes that the carriage of outside food “may create chaos and may lead to security issues.” The affidavit mentions that there had been prior complaints against this malpractice by cinema owners, and the government seeks to address this issue as fairly as possible; But in the very next paragraph, the document contradicts itself by stating that “there is no provision in the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to regulate the food prices of any establishment”, indicating that the concurrent situation may prevail.
The High Court, agitated by the conflicting views of the State Government, demanded how the act of carrying outside food can be viewed as a security threat. It further observed how the indecisiveness of the Government is condoning the consumption of junk food.
A similar case in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir is awaiting the Supreme Court’s judgement on whether to permit outside food in multiplexes.
Similarly, in order to end this stalemate, the Supreme Court’s order is awaited. In the meantime, the petitioner has been ordered to file a rejoinder.
86540
103860
630
114
59824