Back
Supreme Court issues notice on Pranit More's plea to club FIRs over ₹370 biryani remark
The on Monday issued notice to the , the , and the on a plea filed by comedian Pranit More, seeking the clubbing of two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him in connection with the controversial “₹370 biryani” remark. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, heard the matter after More’s counsel submitted that the comedian had apologised on all forums, including before the , and was ready to face trial.
The case stems from a viral video of a stand-up comedy show in Gurugram, where an audience member, Himanshu Jangra, joked about spending ₹370 on biryani during a date and suggested that he expected sexual intimacy in return. More, who was hosting the show, participated in the exchange, which triggered widespread criticism online. The subsequently registered an FIR against More and others over the allegedly objectionable content, while a separate FIR was lodged by the on a complaint by the NCW. The NCW had also summoned both More and Jangra over the remarks concerning consent and sexual conduct.
The Controversy and Public Backlash
The incident erupted in June this year when a clip from More’s show was posted on his Instagram account. In the video, Jangra’s comment about expecting something in return for the biryani expenditure was met with laughter from More and the audience. The video quickly went viral, drawing sharp condemnation from social media users and women’s rights groups. Critics accused the comedian of normalising a dangerous mindset that equates spending on a date with entitlement to sexual favours.
In the aftermath, More publicly apologised, stating that he had failed to object to the remarks during the show. He deleted the video from his social media platforms and later appeared before the NCW to tender an unconditional apology. Despite these steps, both the and the proceeded with their investigations, leading to the two separate FIRs.
Supreme Court Hearing: Key Submissions
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, More’s counsel made several significant submissions. The counsel informed the bench that the comedian had “apologised before all the forums” and that he was “just the host of the show.” Emphasising that More understood the gravity of the situation, the counsel stated: “I am ready to face the trial... the only thing I am seeking is that the Gurgaon FIR be clubbed with the Bombay FIR.”
The counsel further revealed that the controversial video was uploaded by More’s public relations (PR) team without his approval. “Even before the FIR was registered, as soon as I got to know about the gravity of the situation, I deleted the video. I was travelling at that time, and the PR team that I have, they did not take my approval before publishing the video,” the counsel told the court. This submission aimed to underscore that More had no intention of publicising the objectionable content and had taken immediate corrective action.
The bench, after hearing the submissions, ordered notice to the , the , and the , seeking their responses to the plea. The matter is expected to be heard further after the replies are filed.
Legal Analysis: Under Section 482 CrPC
The central legal issue in More’s plea is the clubbing of the two FIRs—one in Maharashtra and one in Haryana—into a single investigation. The power to club FIRs or transfer investigations is often exercised by courts under , which preserves the of the High Courts, and also by the Supreme Court under . The rationale behind clubbing is to avoid , prevent conflicting outcomes, and ensure a fair and efficient trial.
In the present case, both FIRs arise out of the same set of facts—the viral video of the stand-up show. The offence alleged is essentially the same: making remarks that are allegedly offensive to women and that promote a regressive view of consent. Clubbing would allow a single investigating agency to handle the case, reducing the burden on the accused and the judicial system.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice does not guarantee that the FIRs will be clubbed. The court will weigh factors such as the nature of the allegations, the of the police stations, and the possibility of prejudice to either party. Notably, the counsel for More clarified that the comedian is not seeking but merely consolidation. This strategic move signals that More is willing to face the legal consequences but wants to avoid being dragged into multiple proceedings in different states.
Free Speech Versus Criminal Liability
The case also touches upon the delicate balance between under and the limits imposed by criminal law. While comedians and performers enjoy considerable latitude to comment on social issues, the line is crossed when remarks incite hatred, promote violence, or degrade the dignity of women. The NCW’s intervention underscores that the State is increasingly vigilant about content that trivialises consent or perpetuates gender stereotypes.
More’s apology and his claim that the video was uploaded without his knowledge may mitigate his culpability. Yet, the fact that he participated in the exchange on stage raises questions about the responsibility of a host to moderate audience interactions. Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how courts treat viral, out-of-context clips of stand-up comedy, especially when the performer did not originally intend to broadcast the content.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
This case highlights a growing trend of multiple FIRs being filed in different jurisdictions for the same alleged offence, often driven by social media outrage and pressure from statutory bodies like the NCW. For legal practitioners, the plea for clubbing under Section 482 CrPC offers a template for clients facing similar situations. It also reinforces the importance of prompt action—deleting content, issuing apologies, and cooperating with authorities—to demonstrate .
The Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain the plea and issue notice suggests that the judiciary is open to examining the procedural fairness of such parallel investigations. If the court ultimately orders clubbing, it may encourage more accused persons to seek consolidation, thereby reducing the strain on police and trial courts. Conversely, if the court declines, it could embolden multiple agencies to register separate FIRs for the same incident, leading to potential abuse of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court awaits responses from the governments, the legal community will be watching closely. Pranit More’s case is not just about a comedian’s ill-advised banter—it raises fundamental questions about the limits of criminal law in policing speech, the rights of performers, and the efficiency of multi-jurisdictional investigations. For now, More has expressed his willingness to face trial, but the battle ahead will test whether the courts can harmonise the competing demands of accountability and fair procedure. The next hearing will likely provide further clarity on the trajectory of this high-profile case.
