Telangana High Court extends interim order on Pawan Kalyan’s film ticket prices

Justice N V Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Friday extended the interim order suspending the State government’s memo permitting enhanced ticket prices for the Pawan Kalyan-starrer OG till October 9, but clarified that the benefit of the order would not apply to the original petitioner in the case, Vijay Gopal.

The Judge was hearing the matter pursuant to the directions of a division bench, which had on Thursday remanded the case back to the single judge for fresh consideration. Earlier, on September 25, Justice Shravan Kumar had suspended the memo issued on September 19 by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, allowing increased ticket prices, including Rs.800 for premiere shows.

On Friday, Senior Counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the producer DVV Entertainments, and Senior Counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, representing an implead petitioner who is a theatre owner, defended the government’s decision. They submitted that the exemption was granted after due consideration, and that the government had in fact permitted hikes at a rate lower than what the producers had requested. They pointed out that while the makers sought permission for 1 a.m. benefit shows on September 24, the government had



restricted it to 9 p.m., reflecting that discretion had been exercised.

They argued that ticket hikes are considered for big-budget films in the initial days, and the decision benefits not only the producers but also distributors, exhibitors, and even the government, which collects higher GST. The counsels stressed that the right to watch a film on the first day at lower prices cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, and that the petitioner had no legal ground to object.

On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner, Vijay Gopal, reiterated his earlier contentions that the memo violated G.O.Ms.No.120 of 2021, that the Home Department lacked authority to issue the memo under the AP Cinemas (Regulation) Act, and that the exemption was arbitrary and detrimental to cinegoers.

At this stage, Justice Shravan Kumar asked whether the petitioner had watched the movie. Counsel admitted that the petitioner had seen the movie the previous day. Observing this, the Court declined to extend the benefit of the interim order to the petitioner personally, while confirming that the suspension of the memo would apply to all others until the next hearing. The matter was posted for further hearing on October 9.