The petition does not, at this stage, seek to quash the FIRs; it seeks to have the multiple cases registered in different States clubbed together, a relief the Supreme Court routinely grants where one episode generates FIRs across jurisdictions. The controversy arose from a misogynistic remark made by an audience member at the comedian’s show, to which the comedian’s on-stage reaction drew criticism. The FIRs are untested, and the comedian is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
New Delhi: Comedian Pranit More has approached the Supreme Court seeking the clubbing of FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Haryana over the controversy that came to be known as the “Rs 370 biryani” row [Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
The petition impleads the Union of India and the States of Maharashtra and Haryana, and is likely to be listed on September 21.
The background
The controversy arose when an audience member at the comedian’s show made a misogynistic remark that trivialised consent, suggesting that spending a small sum on a date entitled him to sexual intimacy. The comedian laughed along with the audience and responded with a passing quip, which drew widespread online criticism for making light of the remark rather than pushing back on it.
In the aftermath, the audience member is reported to have lost his job over the remark, and the National Commission for Women issued summons. The comedian posted apology videos on social media. According to the reporting, the Maharashtra Cyber Police registered an FIR against the comedian, the audience member and one other, invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to sexual harassment, the sale or distribution of obscene content, public mischief and coercion, together with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, which penalises the publication of obscene material in electronic form. A separate FIR was registered in Haryana.
What the petition seeks
The relief sought is the clubbing, or consolidation, of the FIRs registered against the comedian in different States arising from the same episode. Clubbing does not extinguish the case; it brings multiple FIRs on the same set of facts together so that the accused faces a single, consolidated investigation and, if it comes to it, a single trial, rather than being made to answer parallel proceedings in different States over one incident.
The Supreme Court has, in a line of cases beginning with T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, held that multiple FIRs for the same offence are impermissible, and it routinely transfers or clubs FIRs arising from a single incident, often a single social-media post or broadcast, that attract complaints across several jurisdictions. That is the settled relief the present petition invokes.
The wider context
The case is the latest in a series of controversies in which online and stand-up content has drawn criminal complaints across States. In an earlier and widely reported matter, several comedians faced FIRs across the country over remarks made on a talent show, and the Supreme Court, after criticising the individuals concerned and requiring them to take remedial steps, ultimately quashed the FIRs. A public interest litigation is also pending before the Supreme Court seeking a regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts and other user-generated digital content, and it cites this very controversy as an example of the issues it raises.
Why it matters
The immediate relief sought is procedural and, on the settled law, relatively uncontroversial: a person should not have to defend multiple FIRs in multiple States over a single incident, and the Supreme Court has consistently said so. If the Court is satisfied that the FIRs arise from the same episode, clubbing them is the ordinary course, and it protects the accused from the oppression of parallel prosecutions without deciding anything about guilt.
The larger question the episode raises, and which the pending PIL squarely poses, is where the line falls between offensive or distasteful content and criminal conduct, and how the law should respond to speech on stage and online that many find objectionable. That is a genuinely contested area: the offences invoked, obscenity and the electronic-content provision in particular, have been read narrowly by the courts, which have repeatedly cautioned that distaste or offence is not the same as illegality, even as complainants and some sections of the public press for accountability. This petition does not resolve that debate; it asks only that whatever case exists be heard in one place.
Nothing has been decided. The FIRs record allegations and remain to be tested, the comedian is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the petition is yet to be heard.
Case Title: Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Others [WP (Crl) No. 367 of 2026]
Court: Supreme Court of India
Respondents: Union of India, State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana
Relief sought: Clubbing of the FIRs registered in Maharashtra and Haryana arising from the same episode
Status: Petition filed, likely to be listed on September 21. Allegations untested; no finding recorded; presumption of innocence applies.