Bombay High Court
Amit Vyas vs Union Of India Through The Ministry Of … on 10 January, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-OS:595-DB
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 89 OF 2024
Amit Vyas
adult Indian inhabitant having his
Office at Vertices Partners
Tulsiani Chambers, 801-804,
A Wing, 8th Floor,
Free Press Journal Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021. ... Petitioner
V/s.
SHABNOOR 1. Union of India
AYUB
PATHAN Through the Ministry of Electronics
Digitally signed by and Information Technology
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Date: 2025.01.15
18:01:46 +0530 Lodhi Road, New Delhi 11003. ... Respondent
2. Union of India
Through the Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue) Central
Board of Indirect Taxes and Custom
Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 110001.
3. State of Maharashtra
through its Ministry of Department of
Goods and Service Tax,
GST Bhavan, Ground Floor,
New Building, Balwant Singh
Dodhi Marg, Mazgaon,
Mumbai 400010
1
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
4. Live Nation Entertainment Inc.
Formerly known as CCE Spinco. Inc.
Having its Headquarters at
9348 Civic Centre Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
5. Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
Wajeda House, Ground Floor,
Gulmohar Cross Road 7, Near Tian
Restaurant, Juhu Scheme,
Mumbai - 400 049.
Email Id: [email protected]
6. BookMyShow Live Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office at
CTS No.125, Village Vile Parle,
Near W. E. Highway,
Next to Neelkanth Complex,
Sahar Road, Vile Parle East,
Mumbai - 400099
Email Id. [email protected]
7. Stubhub India Private Limtied.
Through Authorised Representatives
Registered Office;
Plot No.32, CTS No.16295-34,
Jyothi Nagar, Behind Sai Mandir,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra - 431005.
Email:- [email protected]
8. Viagogo Entertainment Inc.
Through Authorised Representatives
Registered Office;
1209 Orange Street,
2
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
Wilmington, Delaware,
U.S.A - 19801.
Also At;
160 Greentree Drive,
Suite 101, Dover, Delaware,
County of Kent, U.S.A - 19904
Email:- [email protected]
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Advocate, (through V.C.) a/w
Ankita Singhania a/w Mr. Saif Digankar, Mr. Amit Vyas,
Mr. Naserali Rizvi, Ms. Poonam Ashar i/by Vertices
Partners for Petitioner.
Smt. Sheetal Malvankar, AGP for State - Respondent
No.3.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 3, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 10, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1. The petitioner, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take cognizance
of online ticketing scams and black marketing, and to frame
effective and comprehensive laws, rules, and regulations to
prevent the practices of ticket scalping, touting, and black
marketing concerning the sale of tickets for ‘major events’.
The petitioner further prays for the constitution of an expert
3
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
committee to study and recommend measures to control and
regulate the online sale of tickets for such events.
2. The petitioner specifically draws attention to substantial
irregularities and illegalities alleged to have occurred in the
online sale of tickets conducted on 22nd September 2024 for
the concert “COLDPLAY: Music of the Spheres World Tour”,
scheduled for January 2025. Based on these allegations, the
petitioner seeks directions for reconvening the online sale of
tickets, if necessary.
3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and claims locus
standi by invoking the doctrine of public interest litigation to
bring to light grievances impacting a large section of the
public. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are companies incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No.4 is a globally
renowned live entertainment company responsible for
organizing and hosting international concerts. Respondent No.
6 is a group company of respondent No.5 and acts as a liaison
for promoting live entertainment events in India. The
petitioner alleges that an online ticketing scam pertaining to
the “COLDPLAY: Music of the Spheres World Tour” Concert
2025, necessitated the filing of the present PIL petition. It is
4
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
alleged that respondent No. 4, as the global ticketing partner
for the Coldplay tour, collaborated with respondent Nos. 5 and
6 and awarded exclusive ticketing rights to “BookMyShow” for
the Indian leg of the tour.
4. The petitioner contends that tickets for the concert were
announced to be live for booking on 22nd September 2024 at
12:00 p.m. via BookMyShow’s digital platform. However,
according to the petitioner, the process was marred by multi-
crore irregularities. It is alleged that even before the
scheduled time of 12:00 p.m., numerous users, including the
petitioner, were logged out from the platform. Subsequently,
both the application (App) and the website became non-
responsive, precluding users from accessing the platform to
purchase tickets. When users were able to log in by 12:16
p.m., they were placed in a digital queue where the initial two
shows of the concert, scheduled for 18th and 19th January
2025, were shown as “sold out” within minutes, at
approximately 12:30 p.m. Further, at around 1:30 p.m., a
third show of the concert, scheduled for 21st January 2025,
was announced and tickets were made available for purchase.
However, these tickets were also shown as “sold out” almost
instantaneously, even as the queue numbers for many users
5
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
remained stagnant.
5. The petitioner contends that within minutes of 12:00
noon on 22nd September 2024, tickets for the concert were
made available on secondary ticketing websites (STWs) such
as Viagogo.com through ticket scalpers, who procured large
quantities of tickets and resold them at exorbitant prices. The
petitioner alleges that the original price of a ticket on the
BookMyShow platform was ₹2,500, but in the secondary
market, the starting price ranged from ₹25,000 to ₹12,00,000
or more. It is argued that such an extraordinary escalation in
ticket prices could not have occurred without the active
involvement, connivance, or gross negligence of promoters,
directors, and key managerial personnel of respondent Nos.4
to 6. The petitioner submits that these actions demonstrate a
blatant failure of the regulatory framework, warranting judicial
scrutiny and remedial measures.
6. The petitioner further states that on 23rd September
2024, a police complaint was filed with the Economic Offences
Wing (EOW), alleging offences under Sections 111(2)
(organized crime), 318(4) (cheating), 316(2) (criminal breach
of trust), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya
6
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) against respondent Nos. 4
to 6 and their key managerial personnel. It is submitted that
the EOW initiated a preliminary inquiry, being PE No. 125 of
2024, to investigate the alleged offences. However, the
inquiry was delayed due to non-cooperation by the
respondents and their key managerial personnel. The
petitioner also points to similar allegations of illegal activities
by a global ticketing entity, Ticketmaster, allegedly associated
with respondent No.4, in jurisdictions such as the United
States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. These
precedents, according to the petitioner, indicate a systematic
and deliberate pattern of misconduct in the global ticketing
industry.
7. The petitioner alleges collusion between event
organizers and primary ticket sellers, who conspire to engage
in unethical practices, including the black marketing of tickets
through foreign entities like Viagogo. It is submitted that a
ticket priced at ₹2,500 attracts Goods and Services Tax (GST)
of approximately ₹700. However, when such tickets are resold
on secondary platforms like Viagogo for prices as high as
₹5,80,000 or more, no GST is paid on the resale transaction,
resulting in significant GST evasion and loss to the public
7
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
exchequer. The petitioner highlights that these STWs do not
disclose the identities of the sellers, making it virtually
impossible to verify whether tickets were procured by genuine
individuals or automated ticketing bots. This opacity in
operations warrants judicial intervention and the formulation
of appropriate guidelines to ensure accountability and
transparency until a specific legislative framework is enacted.
8. The petitioner emphasizes that several international
jurisdictions, including the USA, United Kingdom, Australia,
Canada, Japan, China, Taiwan, France, and Belgium, have
enacted specific laws to combat ticket touting and scalping.
These legal frameworks include provisions to prevent the use
of automated bots, ensure fairness in ticket distribution, and
enhance consumer protection. The absence of analogous
legislation or guidelines in India, the petitioner contends,
compromises the efficiency and fairness of the ticketing
system and perpetuates unethical practices. The petitioner
specifically points out that the use of bots automates the
ticket-purchasing process, enabling them to purchase large
volumes of tickets within seconds, thereby depriving genuine
consumers of access and inflating ticket prices in secondary
markets. This necessitates immediate regulatory intervention
8
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
to curb the misuse of technology in ticketing practices and
safeguard public interest.
9. The petitioner contends that the practices of ticket
scalping, touting, and black marketing violate the
fundamental rights of the public under Articles 14, 15(2), 19,
and 21 of the Constitution of India. These rights, particularly
the right to equality, protection from discriminatory practices,
and the right to life with dignity, are allegedly infringed due to
the lack of fair and transparent mechanisms in online ticketing
systems. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that such
practices contravene the provisions of the Consumer
Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, particularly Rule 4(9),
which mandates e-commerce entities to ensure fair and non-
deceptive practices, and Rule 4(11), which requires them to
provide transparency in their operations
10. The petitioner emphasizes that the regulation of not only
ticket scalping and the use of automated bots but also the
conduct of Primary Ticket Sellers (PTS) and Primary Ticketing
Websites (PTW) is essential to safeguard consumer rights and
public interest in the online ticket sales industry for major
events. These practices, if unchecked, undermine trust in the
9
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
digital economy and create an uneven playing field. It is
submitted that the formation of an expert committee to
conduct a comprehensive macro-level study of the ticketing
practices observed during the Coldplay concert is imperative.
Such a study could provide actionable recommendations to
regulate the secondary ticket market and ensure compliance
with constitutional and statutory principles.
11. According to the petitioner, the absence of stringent laws
or effective regulatory mechanisms has resulted in the
perpetuation of black marketing, ticket scalping, and unethical
touting practices, particularly in the online domain. It is stated
that pending the enactment of adequate legislation, it is
imperative to lay down effective interim guidelines to address
these issues. Such guidelines would serve as a framework for
the regulation of online ticket sales for major events and
provide a deterrent against unlawful and unfair practices.
12. The petitioner has therefore prayed for relief in the
nature of mandamus for framing and enforcement of stringent
guidelines to prevent black marketing, ticket scalping, and
touting of online tickets for major events. Additionally, the
petitioner seeks constitution of a committee to conduct a
10
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
detailed study and recommend measures to control and
regulate the online sale of tickets. In cases where substantial
irregularities or illegalities are identified, the petitioner further
prays for directions to reconvene the online sale of tickets that
were acquired through illegal, unfair, or deceptive acts. These
measures, according to the petitioner, are necessary to uphold
constitutional values, promote fairness and accountability in
the online ticketing system, and protect the interests of
consumers at large.
13. We have heard Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the
lack of regulations governing the sale of online tickets for
major events has resulted in deprivation of genuine
consumers’ fundamental rights, including their right to
equality and non-discrimination under Article 14, as well as
their right to access public goods and services under Articles
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He argued that the
absence of a regulatory framework creates an uneven playing
field, allowing unethical and illegal practices to thrive, thereby
depriving citizens of an equal opportunity to purchase tickets
and access entertainment and live events.
11
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
14. Learned senior counsel further contended that these
unethical practices have caused substantial economic losses to
the public exchequer, particularly due to the evasion of Goods
and Services Tax (GST) on exorbitantly priced tickets sold in
the secondary market. He emphasized that multi-crore
irregularities have emerged from the online sale of tickets due
to the lack of regulations to control primary ticket sales and
the functioning of primary ticketing websites in the online
ticketing industry for major events.
15. He submitted that it is imperative to establish an expert
committee to conduct a comprehensive macro-level study of
the current ticketing ecosystem and recommend effective
measures to regulate the secondary ticket market. Such a
study would ensure accountability, fairness, and transparency
in ticket sales and provide a basis for regulating the primary
and secondary ticket markets to prevent black marketing and
ticket scalping.
16. Learned senior counsel also brought to the Court’s
attention that despite the registration of PE No.125 of 2024 by
the Economic Offences Wing, no substantial progress has
been made in the investigation due to the alleged non-
12
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
cooperation of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and their key
managerial personnel. He urged the Court to take cognizance
of the seriousness of the issue and issue appropriate
directions to ensure compliance by the respondents.
17. In conclusion, Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that this Court
must exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue the necessary directions as
prayed for in paragraph 53 of the Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) petition, including framing stringent guidelines to
address the issue, preventing unlawful practices in ticket
sales, and protecting the rights of consumers and the integrity
of the ticketing system.
18. At the outset, we may state that the petitioner is
seeking writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to
take cognizance of online ticketing scams and black
marketing, and to frame effective and comprehensive laws,
rules, and regulations to prevent the practices of ticket
scalping, touting, and black marketing concerning the sale of
tickets for ‘major events’. In this context, it may be observed
that it is now well settled that the High Court, in exercising its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
13
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
issue directions to compel the legislature to enact a particular
law. This limitation on judicial power is firmly rooted in the
constitutional scheme, which vests the power to legislate
solely in the Parliament and State Legislatures.
19. The Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees’
Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187,
unequivocally held that no court can direct the legislature to
enact a specific law, as such an action would violate the
principle of legislative sovereignty. Similarly, if delegated or
subordinate legislation is permissible under the Constitution or
a parent statute, the judiciary cannot dictate the content of
such rule-making unless there is a failure to meet mandatory
statutory or constitutional requirements.
20. In State of H.P. v. Parent of a Student of Medical College,
(1985) 3 SCC 169, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
required the State Government to initiate legislation against
ragging in educational institutions and, for this purpose,
granted the State Government a period of six weeks. The
decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court held that the direction given by the Division
Bench was, in essence, an attempt to compel the State
14
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
Government to introduce legislation to curb the evil of
ragging. The Court in paragraph 4 observed as follows:
“It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the
Government to decide whether or not to introduce any
particular legislation. Of course, any member of the
legislature can also introduce legislation but the court
certainly cannot mandate the executive or any member
of the legislature to initiate legislation, howsoever
necessary or desirable the court may consider it to be.
That is not a matter which is within the sphere of the
functions and duties allocated to the judiciary under the
Constitution. If the executive is not carrying out any
duty laid upon it by the Constitution or the law, the court
can certainly require the executive to carry out such
duty and this is precisely what the court does when it
entertains public interest litigation. Where the court
finds, on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any
public-spirited individual or social action group, that the
executive is remiss in discharging its obligations under
the Constitution or the law, so that the poor and the
underprivileged continued to be subjected to exploitation
and injustice or are deprived of their social and
economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted
for their benefit is not being implemented thus depriving
them of the rights and benefits conferred upon them,
the court certainly can and must intervene and compel
the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal
obligations and ensure that the deprived and vulnerable
sections of the community are no longer subjected to
exploitation or injustice and they are able to realise their
social and economic rights. When the court passes any
orders in public interest litigation, the court does so not
with a view to mocking at legislative or executive
authority or in a spirit of confrontation but with a view to
enforcing the Constitution and the law, because it is vital
for the maintenance of the rule of law that the15
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.docobligations which are laid upon the executive by the
Constitution and the law should be carried out faithfully
and no one should go away with a feeling that the
Constitution and the law are meant only for the benefit
of a fortunate few and have no meaning for the large
numbers of half-clad, half-hungry people of this country.
That is a feeling which should never be allowed to grow.
But at the same time the court cannot usurp the
functions assigned to the executive and the legislature
under the Constitution and it cannot even indirectly
require the executive to introduce a particular legislation
or the legislature to pass it or assume to itself a
supervisory role over the law-making activities of the
executive and the legislature.”
[
(emphasis supplied)
21. The Court thus underscored that it cannot usurp the
functions assigned to the legislative bodies under the
Constitution by directly or indirectly mandating them to enact
specific legislation. The principle of separation of powers, as
reflected in the scheme of our Constitution, provides that the
legislature, executive, and judiciary must operate within their
own spheres. Courts may enforce existing constitutional or
legal obligations upon the executive or the legislature but
cannot instruct them to enact, amend, or repeal a particular
statute. It is trite that while Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution confer wide powers of judicial review to enforce
rights and obligations, these powers do not extend to
16
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
compelling legislative action where none exists.
22. The above position aligns with the judgment in Common
Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, where the
Supreme Court clarified that while courts may fill legislative
gaps by issuing guidelines in cases where fundamental rights
are at stake (as was done in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,
(1997) 6 SCC 241, in relation to sexual harassment at the
workplace), such guidelines are not a substitute for legislation
and cannot compel the legislature to act. Ultimately, it is for
the legislature alone to decide whether or not to enact a law
in any given field, subject to the parameters of the
Constitution.
23. Even when subordinate legislation is enacted by an
executive authority pursuant to delegated powers, the courts
cannot dictate the content of such rules or regulations. This
principle was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar
Pradesh State Law Officers Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204,
where the Supreme Court observed that courts should refrain
from interfering in matters that fall squarely within the
executive or legislative domain. The judiciary’s role is confined
to ensuring the constitutionality and legality of existing laws
17
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
or administrative actions, and not to formulate policies or
enact laws.
24. In the case of Census Commissioner & Ors. v. R.
Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, the Supreme Court, while
deliberating on the power of the judiciary to issue directions in
matters involving policy or legislative action, observed in
paragraph 33 as follows:
“The court, while exercising its powers, must keep in
view the inherent limitations in its functioning and must
not transgress into the domain of the executive or the
legislature. The judiciary can neither direct the framing
of policies nor dictate the enactment of legislation. The
judicial process, while interpreting laws or policies, must
respect the principle of separation of powers.”
25. This principle underscores that courts should exercise
judicial restraint when dealing with matters that are within the
purview of legislative or executive discretion. It further
reiterates the constitutional framework wherein the legislature
holds the prerogative to address policy gaps and enact laws in
response to emerging challenges.
26. Furthermore, the doctrine of separation of powers, which
forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution,
mandates that the three organs of the State–legislature,
18
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
executive, and judiciary–must function independently within
their respective domains. Judicial encroachment into
legislative functions would undermine this fundamental
principle and disrupt the balance of power envisaged by the
Constitution. Accordingly, while the High Court’s jurisdiction
under Article 226 is broad and supervisory in nature, it must
ensure that it does not overreach its bounds by assuming the
role of the legislature. In keeping with the constitutional
scheme, courts can only guide the executive to comply with
duties explicitly cast by existing statutes or constitutional
provisions. They cannot assume a supervisory role over law-
making powers, which remain within the exclusive domain of
duly elected legislative bodies under Articles 245 to 248
(relating to the distribution of legislative powers) of the
Constitution.
27. Hence, the High Court must ensure that in exercising its
supervisory jurisdiction, it refrains from intruding into
legislative functions. It must not overstep the well-recognised
boundaries of judicial review by issuing directions that
effectively mandate legislative or policy formulations that rest
exclusively in the legislature’s domain.
19
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
28. Applying these principles to the present case, in the
absence of existing statutory provisions regulating illegalities
such as ticket scalping, touting, and black marketing
concerning the sale of tickets for major events–or provisions
addressing the misuse of bots and malpractices by primary
ticket sellers and ticketing platforms–the Court cannot issue
directions to enact specific laws or regulations to address
these concerns.
29. While the petitioner’s grievances highlight the urgent
need for regulatory intervention to address the challenges
posed by the evolving online ticketing industry, the
responsibility for creating a statutory framework lies with the
legislature. Courts, while acknowledging the significance of
such issues, must limit themselves to providing
recommendations or directing compliance within the existing
legal framework. Furthermore, directions and guidelines
issued by the court are permissible only when they are in
consonance with and within the framework of existing
statutory provisions. In the absence of a statutory framework,
the court is constrained from issuing binding directions to
formulate specific laws or regulations.
20
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
30. In the present case, the grievances raised by the
petitioner about unethical practices in the online ticketing
ecosystem underscore the need for robust regulatory
mechanisms. However, it is ultimately for the legislature and
the executive, in their wisdom, to address these issues
through appropriate policy measures or legislative
intervention.
31. Moreover, accepting that for the enforcement of
fundamental rights such a direction could be issued in the
absence of specific legislation, in our considered opinion, the
practices of ticket scalping, hoarding, and resale by private
entities and individuals, without any direct or substantial
involvement of the State or its instrumentality, do not per se
violate fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 14, 15(2),
19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
32. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before the law
and equal protection of the laws. However, the petitioner has
not demonstrated any State action or involvement of a State
instrumentality that discriminates or arbitrarily restricts
individuals from purchasing tickets. Ticket scalping and resale,
though ethically questionable, are predominantly conducted
21
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
by private entities and individuals. To establish a violation
under Article 14, it must be demonstrated that the alleged
discrimination or arbitrariness is attributable to the State or to
a “State” authority as contemplated under Article 12 of the
Constitution. Private conduct, absent any state action or
nexus, generally does not come within the ambit of Article 14.
(See: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111.). In the absence of such evidence,
the claim of an Article 14 infringement remains
unsubstantiated.
33. Article 15(2) prohibits discrimination on grounds of
religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in matters of access
to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public
entertainment. However, mere commercial restrictions or
inflated prices set by private parties, without discrimination
based on the protected categories, do not fall within its scope.
The petitioner has not shown how the alleged practices
amount to such discrimination or denial of access to public
entertainment. Ticket scalping and hoarding may restrict
access to certain events due to inflated pricing, but these
actions do not fall within its ambit Article 15(2). Consequently,
the alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of Article
22
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
15(2).
34. While Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the freedom to
practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade,
or business, this provision neither creates a fundamental right
to access privately organized events nor does it prohibit all
profit-driven endeavors. However, these freedoms do not
encompass an unrestricted right to access entertainment
events organized by private entities. Moreover, no
unreasonable restriction has been shown to be imposed by
the State under Articles 19(2) to 19(6) in relation to ticket
scalping or resale activities by private entities. Regulation of
ticket sales and resale, where it exists, is a matter of
commercial activity, and legislative bodies–exercising their
powers under Entries 26 and 33 of the State List or
Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule–are vested with
authority to enact or amend laws governing such practices.
35. Lastly, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include various
facets of a dignified existence. While access to cultural and
entertainment opportunities can be considered an important
aspect of individual well-being, the practices of ticket scalping,
23
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
hoarding, and resale do not amount to a State-inflicted
deprivation of life or personal liberty. Article 21 is primarily
enforceable against the State or entities that can be
characterized as “State” under Article 12, or that perform
public duties of a governmental nature. Private wrongdoing, in
the absence of direct or indirect state participation, generally
does not amount to a violation of Article 21.
36. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC
649, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether
the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)–a private
body–could be treated as “State” or an instrumentality/
agency of the government within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution. The Court held that BCCI did not fall within
the ambit of “State” and, therefore, actions against it for
alleged breaches of fundamental rights were not maintainable.
37. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life
and personal liberty, which is enforceable against the “State”
(or any authority that qualifies as a “State” under Article 12).
In Zee Telefilms, the Supreme Court clarified that private
bodies, even if they discharge some public functions, are not
automatically brought within the fold of “State” unless they
24
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
fulfill the criteria indicating a significant or pervasive control
by government or performance of an exclusively
governmental (public) function.
38. In the ticket scalping/hoarding scenario, as described in
the petition, the entities carrying out these activities are
private actors (e.g., ticketing websites, promoters, scalpers)
with no substantial or pervasive control by the government.
Following the ratio of Zee Telefilms, these private entities
would not be categorized as instrumentalities or agencies of
the State merely because they are performing a commercial
activity of selling event tickets. Applying Zee Telefilms to the
ticket scalping context, since private individuals and entities
are the main operators (and not governmental bodies), no
direct Article 21 violation arises unless it can be demonstrated
that the private body is “State” or is exercising a public
function under Article 12.
39. Insofar as the contentions raised by Mr. Dwarkadas,
learned senior counsel, regarding the alleged loss to the
public exchequer due to unchecked resale of tickets at inflated
prices are concerned, the same falls within the domain of tax
enforcement authorities. The Central Goods and Services Tax
25
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
Act, 2017 (hereinafter “GST Act”) provides ample scope for
the authorities to take action in instances where there is
reason to believe that tax has not been paid or has been short
evaded.
40. Therefore, it is open for the Goods and Services Tax
authorities to take necessary action in accordance with law if
evidence substantiating allegations of revenue loss is brought
to their notice. However, for the said purpose, it is neither
necessary nor within the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles
226 of the Constitution to issue directions compelling such
authorities to act in a specific manner or to undertake any
particular investigation. The relevant statutory provisions, as
outlined, already vest adequate powers in these authorities to
conduct inquiries, impose penalties, and provide remedies
where appropriate.
41. Furthermore, in the absence of an enforceable right
being demonstrated by the petitioner, this Court cannot
invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant the relief
sought. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the writ
of mandamus can only be issued where there exists a legal
right in favor of the petitioner and a corresponding legal duty
26
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
on the part of the respondent to act and infringement of such
right or failure of duty on the part of public authorities. (See
Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC
638).
42. Mr. Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel, next contended
that considering the facts of this case, it is necessary to
constitute an expert committee to conduct a study and
recommend measures to control and regulate the sale of
online tickets for major events. While we note the petitioner’s
concerns, we have already held that it is not within the
Court’s province to issue directions in matters of policy and
legislation. Under the constitutional framework, Articles 245
to 248 vest sovereign legislative power exclusively in the
Parliament and State Legislatures, and the judiciary cannot
compel these bodies to enact or amend laws in a particular
domain. In other words, the doctrine of separation of powers
precludes the Court from directing the legislature or the
executive to form a specific committee or to pass particular
legislation.
43. If the executive or legislature, in its wisdom, deems it
appropriate, an expert committee could be constituted by
27
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
invoking powers under any enabling statute or even under
executive powers, to inquire into and take effective measures
on issues affecting the public interest. However, as clarified by
the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare
Assn. (Supra), Courts cannot usurp the role of policy-makers
by mandating the creation of such bodies. Nor can the courts
dictate the manner in which the legislature or executive
should exercise their legislative or administrative
power/discretion.
44. Consequently, while the matter raised by the petitioner
indeed highlights the importance of regulating and overseeing
online ticket sales for major events–particularly to address
allegations of black marketing, scalping, and revenue loss–
judicial deference is required. Any legislative or policy
initiative, including the constitution of an expert committee,
must emanate from the competent authorities under the
constitutional and statutory scheme. Therefore, in view of the
settled legal position, we are unable to accede to the
petitioner’s prayer to constitute an expert committee through
judicial intervention. The legislature and the executive remain
at liberty to undertake such measures as they deem fit in the
public interest.
28
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
45. Moreover, in the absence of an existing statutory
framework regulating ticket scalping, touting, and black
marketing pertaining to major events–or provisions
governing the use of bots and regulating primary ticket sellers
in the online ticketing industry–this Court cannot issue
binding directions or guidelines compelling the creation of
such a committee. Our Constitution underscores the principle
of separation of powers requiring the judiciary to refrain from
overstepping into legislative or executive functions, which
include policy formulation and the creation of statutory bodies
or committees or framework.
46. We, however, clarify that it shall be open for the
appropriate legislature or executive to frame or amend
effective laws, rules, and regulations to address the concerns
raised by the petitioner, including but not limited to regulating
secondary ticket markets, curbing black marketing, and
preventing GST evasion under the Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017.
47. The petitioner has further sought directions against
respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to co-operate with an Expert
Committee and/or Monitoring Committee by providing all
29
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
necessary information requisitioned for examining the sale of
tickets that took place on 22nd September 2024, particularly
with regard to alleged ticket scalping and black marketing. In
essence, the petitioner urges this Court to embark upon a
speculative inquiry–one that may, in the petitioner’s belief,
unearth substantive material concerning ticket scalping and
black marketing during the online sale of tickets for the event.
48. The legal position on this issue is well settled. This
Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, must refrain from
engaging in or compelling a roving or speculative inquiry,
particularly where the petitioner has not established a prima
facie violation of an existing legal right or shown a
corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondents. In A.
Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 51,
the Supreme Court emphasized that petitioner must
independently make out a case and cannot rely on judicial
process merely to discover evidence in the hope of
establishing a claim.
49. Similarly, in N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC
98, it was held that speculative or roving inquiries are
30
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
unwarranted under the guise of judicial review–particularly
when they relate to private or contractual rights, as opposed
to a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.
The Court noted that Article 226 confers broad powers of
judicial review, but these powers do not extend to sanctioning
investigations in the absence of a proper legal basis or factual
foundation.
50. Reference may also be made to Ratan Chandra
Sammanta v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 415, wherein
the Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus or any
similar order would issue only in favor of a person who
possesses an established or legally enforceable right, and not
for the purpose of initiating an open-ended inquiry into
speculative or unsubstantiated allegations. A court, in
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot compel the
respondents to produce extensive records or to cooperate in a
broad investigative exercise in absence of concrete evidence
or at least a prima facie infringement of a legal right.
51. Merely seeking an order to compel the respondents to
supply information for a committee–when no specific
violation of an established right has been shown–falls within
31
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
the ambit of a fishing or roving inquiry, which this Court is
inclined to disallow in view of the precedents cited.
52. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, we find
no justification to grant such prayer. Unless the petitioner
demonstrates a clear legal right, supported by credible
evidence of violation of statutory or constitutional provisions,
Article 226 of the Constitution does not authorize the Court to
embark upon an unbounded inquiry, nor to compel the
respondents to disclose information on a purely speculative
basis.
53. The next prayer made by the petitioner is contingent on
a report of a monitoring committee–if such a committee were
constituted by this Court–that, in the event substantial
illegalities are found to have taken place in the online sale of
tickets, directions be issued for re-convening the online sale of
tickets acquired by illegal, unfair, and deceptive acts. In our
considered opinion, this prayer is untenable for multiple
reasons. Firstly, as discussed, in the absence of a breach of a
fundamental right or a clear statutory mandate, this Court is
not inclined to constitute such a committee. Secondly, the
petitioner has already registered PE No.125 of 2024 before
32
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
the Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”) and has alleged
commission of offences under Sections 11(2), 318(4), 316(2)
read with 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS,
2023) against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and their key
managerial personnel. Under the newly enacted Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023)–which governs
investigative procedures and delineates powers of
investigation–officers of the EOW are enjoined with a duty to
conduct a fair and comprehensive inquiry into all allegations
set forth in the complaint. If, in the course of investigation,
the EOW uncovers sufficient evidence suggesting the
commission of a cognizable offence or a prima facie violation
under the relevant sections of BNS, 2023, it shall be within
their prerogative to take further steps in accordance with
BNSS, 2023 or any other law applicable thereto.
54. In light of the above, we see no justification for judicial
intervention to re-convene any online ticket sale or to impose
further monitoring mechanisms beyond what is already
available under the statutory framework. The investigating
agency is duty-bound to proceed with the inquiry in
accordance with law, and if it finds credible material
substantiating the petitioner’s allegations, legal recourse
33
::: Uploaded on – 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::
PIL-89-2024-Final.doc
through the criminal justice system is fully available.
55. For the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the
prayers sought by the petitioner. The issues raised in this
petition primarily pertain to matters of policy and legislation,
which lie within the exclusive domain of the legislature and
the executive. In the absence of a clear statutory framework
mandating the reliefs claimed, and given the settled legal
position that courts cannot direct the legislature to enact or
amend laws in a particular manner, we are unable to accede
to the petitioner’s prayers. However, in the event that the
competent authorities consider it necessary, they remain at
liberty to take appropriate legislative or executive measures
to address the concerns highlighted by the petitioner.
56. For the aforesaid purpose, it will be open to the
petitioner to approach the authority concerned, by way of
representing him, for redressal of the grievances raised
herein.
57. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
58. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 34 ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2025 06:28:35 :::