Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Laws Against Ticket Scalping, Cites Separation of Powers

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar , has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the government to frame laws against online ticket scalping and black marketing for major events. The Court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus compelling the legislature to enact specific laws, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It also ruled that private acts of ticket scalping do not, per se, violate citizens' fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Case Background: Coldplay Concert Sparks PIL

The PIL (No. 89 of 2024) was filed by Advocate Amit Vyas, highlighting alleged large-scale irregularities during the online sale of tickets for the "COLDPLAY: Music of the Spheres World Tour" concert scheduled for January 2025. The petitioner claimed that the ticketing platform 'BookMyShow' (Respondent Nos. 5 & 6), which had exclusive rights from the organizer Live Nation Entertainment Inc. (Respondent No. 4), experienced glitches and non-responsiveness on September 22, 2024, the day sales opened.

Tickets were allegedly shown as "sold out" within minutes, only to reappear on secondary ticketing websites (STWs) like Viagogo (Respondent No. 8) at exorbitant prices – escalating from an original ₹2,500 to upwards of ₹25,000 and even ₹12,00,000. The petitioner alleged collusion, use of automated bots, significant Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion on resale, and filed a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which initiated a preliminary inquiry (PE No. 125 of 2024).

Petitioner's Arguments: Need for Regulation and Fundamental Rights

Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, representing the petitioner, argued: * The lack of regulation governing online ticket sales, particularly scalping and the use of bots, violates citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15(2) (non-discrimination in access to public entertainment), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (life and liberty) by denying genuine fans fair access. * The practices cause substantial loss to the public exchequer through GST evasion on inflated resale prices. * An expert committee was necessary to study the ticketing ecosystem and recommend regulatory measures, citing laws in other countries (USA, UK, Australia, etc.). * The EOW inquiry was stalled due to non-cooperation from the involved companies (Respondents 4 to 6). * The court should issue interim guidelines pending legislation.

Court's Analysis: Limits of Judicial Intervention

The High Court meticulously analyzed the prayers sought in the PIL against established legal principles:

1. Mandamus to Legislate Impermissible

The primary prayer sought a mandamus directing the Union and State governments (Respondents 1-3) to frame laws against ticket scalping. The Court firmly rejected this, stating: * Separation of Powers: The power to legislate rests exclusively with Parliament and State Legislatures (Articles 245-248). Courts cannot compel them to enact specific laws. * Judicial Precedents: Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments like Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India (1989), State of H.P. v. Parent of a Student of Medical College (1985), and Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015), the bench reiterated that courts cannot usurp legislative functions or dictate policy. > "It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation... the court certainly cannot mandate the executive or any member of the legislature to initiate legislation..." (Excerpt from State of H.P. ruling cited by the High Court). * Guidelines: While courts can issue guidelines to fill legislative gaps where fundamental rights are involved ( Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan ), such guidelines must be within the framework of existing law and cannot substitute legislation or compel its creation. As no specific statute regulates online ticket scalping in the manner sought, the court found itself constrained.

2. No Fundamental Rights Violation by Private Actors

The Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that ticket scalping by private entities violates fundamental rights: * Article 14 (Equality): Requires state action or involvement of a state instrumentality. Private conduct, without state nexus, generally falls outside Article 14's scope ( Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology ). No such state action was demonstrated. * Article 15(2) (Access to Public Entertainment): Prohibits discrimination based on specific grounds (religion, race, etc.). Inflated pricing by private parties, without such discrimination, is not covered. * Article 19 (Freedoms): Does not guarantee a fundamental right to access privately organized events at a specific price. * Article 21 (Life and Liberty): Primarily enforceable against the State. Private wrongdoing, like scalping, doesn't constitute State-inflicted deprivation unless the entity qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 ( Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India ), which ticketing platforms generally do not.

3. Other Prayers Declined

• Expert Committee: The Court refused to order the constitution of an expert committee, deeming it a policy matter within the executive/legislative domain.
• Roving Inquiry: The prayer to compel Respondents 4-8 to provide information for examining the ticket sale was rejected as an impermissible "fishing or roving inquiry" in the absence of a prima facie established legal right violation ( A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu , N.K. Singh v. Union of India ).
• Reconvening Ticket Sale: This prayer was deemed untenable as it was contingent on a committee report (which the court declined to order) and because the EOW was already seized of the matter under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• GST Evasion: The Court noted that GST authorities possess adequate powers under the CGST Act, 2017 to investigate alleged tax evasion and take action, requiring no specific judicial direction.

Final Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the prayers sought. While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns about unethical practices in the online ticketing market, the court underscored its limitation in directing legislative or policy action due to the separation of powers.

The judgment clarifies that while the need for regulating online ticket sales and curbing scalping may be pressing, the onus lies squarely on the legislature and the executive to devise appropriate laws and policies. The Court left it open for the petitioner to approach the concerned government authorities with representations and for the competent authorities to frame regulations if they deem it necessary in the public interest. The existing EOW investigation remains the primary avenue for addressing the specific criminal allegations related to the Coldplay concert ticket sales.