Supreme Court Seeks Responses From Centre and States on Comedian Pranit More's Plea to Club Multiple FIRs The Supreme Court has issued notices to the central government along with Haryana and Maharashtra on standup comic Pranit More's petition seeking to consolidate criminal cases stemming from the controversial biryani clip. The Supreme Court of India has stepped into the legal controversy surrounding standup comedian Pranit More by issuing formal notices to the Union government as well as the state administrations of Haryana and Maharashtra. A judicial bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana considered the performer's formal request seeking consolidation of numerous criminal complaints registered across multiple jurisdictions into a single proceeding. Defense Submissions Before the Apex Bench Advocates representing the comedian submitted before the judges that the allegations leveled across different police stations are essentially identical in substance and arise from the exact same event. Counsel argued that running parallel investigations and trials across different regional forums would cause unnecessary prejudice, urging that the cases be grouped together. The bench was also informed that the entertainer had already issued a public apology regarding the episode and remains fully willing to undergo lawful trial proceedings. The legal counsel further pointed out that the disputed internet recording had been deleted from digital channels prior to the registration of any formal police complaints. Additionally, the lawyer stated that the performer's promotional team had uploaded the recording without securing prior clearance from him. After taking these preliminary submissions into consideration, the apex court directed the relevant governments to submit their formal responses. Stage Interaction and Derogatory Remarks The controversy traces its roots to a live standup presentation staged in Gurugram, where a spectator identified as Himanshu Jangra began recounting a personal dining outing. The attendee mentioned having paid approximately 370 rupees on a meal of chicken biryani during the encounter, after which he uttered remarks widely condemned as derogatory toward women. In the widely circulated video, the man implied that spending that sum entitled him to physical intimacy in return. He even suggested recovering the monetary cost when the companion asked to be dropped back home. Instead of addressing the offensive premise, the onstage comic was seen laughing at the remarks and remarking that it represented 'peak Gurugram content,' an exchange that triggered immediate widespread backlash. Regulatory Outrage and Parallel Police Cases As public anger mounted, the National Commission for Women intervened by issuing summons to both the comedian and the attendee who made the remarks. The commission also instructed Haryana's Director General of Police to initiate strict legal steps, noting that the recorded remarks trivialized critical concepts like consent and physical boundaries. Consequently, law enforcement authorities in Gurugram registered a formal criminal complaint. Simultaneously, the Maharashtra Cyber Police registered their own first information report naming More, Jangra, and another individual. With parallel police proceedings underway across different regions over a single incident, the comedian approached the country's highest judicial forum seeking procedural relief and consolidation of the matters. What this means for you This legal development highlights the tightening regulatory and criminal consequences surrounding live entertainment content and online conduct. • Impact on Content Creators: Digital performers must now exercise strict scrutiny over crowd work clips prior to public distribution. Failing to vet recordings can lead to immediate multi-state prosecution and severe professional repercussions. • Conduct at Live Shows: Encouraging derogatory remarks by audience members can expose show hosts to shared criminal culpability. Performers are expected to firmly shut down offensive remarks rather than normalizing them on stage. • Protection of Women Rights: Statutory regulatory bodies are actively monitoring viral media to penalize statements mocking physical consent. This reassures citizens that derogatory public commentary on women will trigger prompt administrative action. • Judicial Precedent on Multiple FIRs: Accused persons facing duplicate complaints in multiple states can seek procedural consolidation from apex constitutional benches. This establishes clarity on avoiding multi-jurisdictional legal harassment for identical alleged infractions. Why this happened The present controversy arose after a spectator made derogatory remarks about consent during a live performance, which were amplified online rather than condemned on the spot. • Viral Objectionable Video: An audience attendee made unacceptable comments implying entitlement to physical intimacy over a 370-rupee food expense. The subsequent release of this clip across digital networks sparked widespread public condemnation. • Unchecked Stage Reaction: The performer on stage laughed and categorized the problematic remarks as typical regional banter instead of rebuking the spectator. Critics and legal authorities viewed this response as an endorsement of misogynistic behavior. • Regulatory Enforcement: The National Commission for Women stepped in, classifying the exchange as a trivialization of consent and demanding immediate criminal action. This prompted law enforcement agencies in both Haryana and Maharashtra to register independent offenses. • Need for Jurisdictional Relief: Facing separate criminal probes in different states over the exact same incident, the performer moved the apex court to merge all proceedings into a unified judicial process. Questions & Answers 1. To whom has the Supreme Court issued notices in this matter? The Supreme Court has issued notices seeking responses from the Union government as well as the state governments of Haryana and Maharashtra. 2. What is the primary prayer made by Pranit More in his petition? The comedian has requested the court to consolidate all first information reports lodged across different states into a single proceeding. 3. Which judicial bench presided over the hearing? The hearing was conducted by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana. 4. Where did the controversy initially originate? The incident originated during a live comedy show held in Gurugram following controversial statements made by an audience member. 5. What defense did the performer's lawyer put forward in court? Counsel submitted that More had publicly apologized, the clip had been removed prior to any FIR, and the PR team had published it without prior approval. https://trendkia.com/en/entertainment/komediyana-pranit-more-ki-arji-para-suprima-korta-ka-kadama-kai-rajyon-men-darja-mamalon-ko-lekara-kendra-aura-sarakaron-se-manga--35784 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.