The Bombay High Court on Thursday struck down the Maharashtra government’s orders prohibiting multiplexes and cinema operators from charging convenience fees on online ticket bookings. The court ruled that the state lacked legal authority under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty (MED) Act to impose such a restriction, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

A Division Bench comprising Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the prohibition violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

The court observed that the government orders (GOs) — issued between April 2013 and March 2014 — had no legislative backing. “The impugned GOs, to the extent that they prohibit collection of convenience fees on tickets booked online, violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,” the Bench noted, adding that the orders must be “quashed and set aside”.

The judges clarified that opting to book tickets online was a matter of consumer choice and that charging a convenience fee for the service was a legitimate business practice.

 “If the customer feels it is convenient… the respondents cannot restrain the petitioners from collecting the convenience fees, since for providing this facility… petitioners have to invest in the technology,” the court said.

The Bench cautioned against excessive government interference in commercial decisions, noting, “If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business… economic activity would come to a grinding halt.”

The petitions were filed by PVR Ltd, Big Tree Entertainment (which operates BookMyShow), and other cinema operators. They argued that convenience fees were a commercial service charge, covering costs like payment gateways, internet infrastructure, and customer support—not subject to the MED Act.

The Maharashtra government contended that such charges were not permitted under the MED Act and invoked Article 162 of the Constitution to defend its executive orders. It claimed that the convenience fee amounted to an excess charge not factored into the entertainment tax structure.

 Rejecting this argument, the court said that executive powers under Article 162 cannot function in a legislative vacuum. It underscored that there was no provision in the MED Act empowering the government to prohibit the collection of such fees.