Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Seeks Responses on Comedian Pranit More’s Request to Club FIRs Over “Rs 370 Biryani” Controversy
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Supreme Court Hearing on Clubbing FIRs
On September 21, 2026, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court—Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana—issued notice to the Union government and the states of Maharashtra and Haryana on a petition by stand-up comedian Pranit More. More’s counsel asked that the FIRs lodged in the two states be combined, arguing that they are identical. The bench also sought the Centre’s response.
Background & Context
The dispute stems from a viral video recorded at a comedy show in Gurugram. During a crowd-work segment, audience member Himanshu Jangra, a web developer, recounted spending INR370 on chicken biryani and then suggested he expected sexual favours when the woman asked him to drop her home. More, acting as host, laughed and called the remark “peak Gurugram content.” The clip spread widely, prompting accusations that it trivialised consent.
The National Commission for Women (NCW) summoned More and Jangra, calling the comments offensive and contrary to dignity and consent. The Maharashtra Cyber Police filed an FIR against More, Jangra and a third individual under Sections 75, 294, 353 and 354 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) and Section 67 of the IT Act. A separate FIR was later registered by the Gurugram Police.
Legal Proceedings and FIR Details
- Statutory provisions: Sections 75, 294, 353(3), 354 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the IT Act.
- Jurisdictions: One FIR filed by the Maharashtra Cyber Cell (“Bombay FIR”) and another by the Gurugram Police.
- Employment consequence: Jangra’s employer, Starvik Design, terminated his employment; founder Vivek Vishwakarma confirmed the dismissal in a video posted on X.
Official Statements & Responses
More’s counsel told the bench that the comedian had issued a public apology, deleted the video, and was prepared to face trial. He emphasized that More was “just the host” and that the PR team had released the clip without his approval.
The NCW’s summons asserted that the remarks appeared to glorify coercive behaviour and urged law-enforcement action.
Starvik Design’s founder stated that Jangra’s employment was terminated because the comment attracted nationwide criticism and conflicted with the firm’s values.
Impact & Wider Discussion
The episode has sparked debate about performers’ responsibilities during crowd-work and the limits of comedic expression when remarks touch on sexual consent. Women’s rights organisations have staged protests demanding accountability, arguing that content which appears to trivialise consent should not be defended as entertainment. The legal scrutiny underscores growing expectations that public figures address misogynistic language, even when it arises spontaneously from audience interaction.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s order seeks written responses from the Centre, Maharashtra and Haryana. The Court has not yet ruled on the request to club the FIRs, and the final decision will determine whether the two investigations proceed as a single case or remain separate.