The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, issued an interim stay on a ruling by the Bengaluru Consumer Forum in a case against PVR Cinemas for delaying the screening of a movie due to prolonged ads, according to media reports. The stay, granted by Justice M Nagaprasanna, will remain in effect until March 27.

The case revolves around a delay in a film screening due to long advertisements before the movie. A complaint was filed in January last year with the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by Abhishek M R, who claimed he was affected by the long advertisements before the movie.

Abhishek, in his complaint, alleged that the screening of the Vicky Kaushal starrer Sam Bahadur in December 2023 was scheduled for 4:05 pm but only began at 4:30 pm due to prolonged advertisements. This delay, he claimed, caused him to be late for work.

In February 2024, the consumer forum ruled in Abhishek’s favour, stating, “In the modern era, time is as valuable as money. Every individual’s time is precious, and no entity has the right to profit from someone else’s time. Being forced to sit idle for 25-30 minutes watching advertisements is a significant inconvenience, particularly for those with tight schedules.”

The forum also directed PVR Cinemas to compensate Abhishek with Rs 1.28 lakh for the inconvenience caused.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Multiplex Association of India, argued that advertisements and trailers before movie screenings are a longstanding industry practice. He highlighted that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting mandates public awareness advertisements for at least five minutes.

 “It has always been understood that films begin 15-20 minutes after the scheduled time due to advertisements and trailers. The (consumer) forum’s ruling mandates that theatres must specify on tickets that advertisements will start at 4 pm, which interferes with a well-established business model,” Rohatgi argued.

Granting an interim stay, the Karnataka High Court noted that the 'consumer forum appeared to have exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on how a cinema should operate.'

 “The consumer forum entertained the complaint and issued directions as though it had jurisdiction equivalent to a public interest litigation. It went beyond its scope by dictating how a theatre should function and by prohibiting advertisements before movie screenings. On the face of it, these directions are beyond its jurisdiction,” the court observed.