The Bombay High Court recently ruled on a high-stakes Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aimed to curb the pervasive issues of ticket scalping, black marketing, and alleged collusion in the online ticketing ecosystem for major events. The PIL, which particularly spotlighted the irregularities surrounding ticket sales for Coldplay’s January 2025 concert in India, raised significant questions about accountability, governance, and the boundaries of judicial intervention.
Filed by concerned citizens, the PIL alleged gross mismanagement and unethical practices in the ticket sales process. Buyers reported being logged out of the ticketing website within minutes of its launch, only to see tickets reappear on secondary platforms at staggering mark-ups. Tickets priced at Rs 2,500 were being resold for amounts ranging from Rs 25,000 to over Rs 12 lakh, hinting at possible collusion between event organizers and secondary market operators.
The petition demanded strict regulations to counter such practices, including forming an expert committee to study the issue and re-opening sales for tickets acquired through unlawful means. It also accused organizers of GST evasion and causing significant losses to the public exchequer.
Judicial Limits: A Constitutional Standpoint
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar firmly asserted the judiciary’s constitutional limitations. Citing established precedents, the bench reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, courts cannot compel the legislature to enact specific laws.
Referencing landmark cases like Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association vs Union of India (1989) and Common Cause vs Union of India (1999), the judgment underscored the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework. The judiciary’s role, it emphasized, is to interpret existing laws and ensure their enforcement, not to step into the domain of lawmaking. “Judicial encroachment into legislative functions would disrupt the balance of power envisaged by the Constitution,” the Court stated, adding that policy gaps should be addressed by elected legislative bodies, not the courts.
Private Entities And Fundamental Rights
The High Court also clarified that ticket scalping and resale, while ethically questionable, do not inherently violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, or 21 of the Constitution. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs Union of India (2005), it stated that private entities like ticketing platforms and promoters cannot be deemed “State” under Article 12 and are therefore not subject to direct constitutional obligations.
Economic And Legal Implications
The PIL raised valid concerns about the loss of revenue to the public exchequer due to GST evasion on inflated ticket prices. However, the Court pointed out that such matters fall under the purview of tax enforcement authorities, as outlined in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It declined to issue specific directions to authorities to investigate alleged tax evasion, citing lack of jurisdiction.
While the Court dismissed the PIL, it left room for policy-makers to address these issues. “An expert committee to study and regulate ticket sales is within the executive’s purview, should they deem it necessary,” the Court noted.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau
The post Scalping the Fans appeared first on India Legal.