Pranit More ₹370 Biryani FIR Case: Supreme Court Seeks Responses on Clubbing of Maharashtra and Haryana Cases
A viral comedy clip can last less than a minute. The criminal proceedings arising from it can last for years.
That tension now lies at the heart of the Pranit More Supreme Court case, in which stand-up comedian Pranit More has approached the Supreme Court seeking the clubbing of criminal cases registered against him in Maharashtra and Haryana following the controversial “₹370 biryani” episode.
The Supreme Court has now taken cognisance of his plea. On September 21, 2026, a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre and the governments of Maharashtra and Haryana. More’s counsel told the Court that the FIRs arise from the same set of facts and that the comedian is prepared to face trial, but does not want to face parallel criminal proceedings in different States over the same controversy.
The order is significant, but it is important to understand what it does—and what it does not do.
The Supreme Court has not decided that Pranit More is innocent, has not quashed the FIRs and has not yet ordered that the proceedings be clubbed. At this stage, the Court has sought responses from the concerned governments.
The question before the Court is essentially one of criminal procedure and jurisdiction: when substantially the same incident gives rise to criminal proceedings in more than one State, should the accused be required to defend parallel proceedings, or should the proceedings be consolidated?
The ₹370 Biryani Controversy: How It Began
The controversy originated during a stand-up comedy show in Gurugram.
During a crowd interaction, an audience member, identified in reports as Himanshu Jangra, narrated an incident involving a woman with whom he had gone on a date. According to reports, he referred to spending ₹370 on chicken biryani and subsequently suggested that he expected sexual intimacy in return when the woman asked him to drop her home.
The exchange was recorded and subsequently circulated online.
More’s reaction during the interaction—including laughing at the audience member’s remarks—became the subject of criticism after the clip went viral. Critics argued that the exchange trivialised questions surrounding consent and sexual entitlement.
The controversy rapidly moved beyond social media.
The audience member’s original statement became one part of the controversy, while questions were also raised concerning More’s response as the host of the show and the subsequent circulation of the video.
The legal proceedings that followed, however, concern allegations that must ultimately be tested through the criminal justice process. An allegation in an FIR is not a finding of guilt.
Maharashtra Cyber Registers FIR No. 36/2026
The first major criminal action came from Maharashtra.
According to reports based on the Maharashtra Cyber police statement, FIR No. 36/2026 was registered at the Nodal Cyber Police Station against Pranit More, Himanshu Jangra, Dr Sejal Pawar and others.
The FIR reportedly invokes:
- Section 75(1)(iv), BNS, 2023;
- Section 75(3), BNS, 2023;
- Section 294, BNS, 2023;
- Section 353(2), BNS, 2023; and
- Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Maharashtra proceedings were not confined to what happened physically on the comedy stage. The allegations also concerned the publication and circulation of material through digital and social-media platforms.
That distinction is important because the legal controversy therefore involves not merely what was said during a live performance, but also the subsequent recording, publication and electronic dissemination of the material.
A Second FIR in Gurugram
The controversy subsequently resulted in another criminal case in Haryana.
An FIR was registered at DLF Phase-II Police Station, Gurugram, against More and Jangra following complaints and intervention concerning the viral episode. Reports stated that the Gurugram case invoked provisions of the BNS dealing with sexual harassment, obscene material and related allegations, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
This created the central procedural difficulty now placed before the Supreme Court.
There were criminal proceedings in two different States arising out of the same broad controversy.
For an accused, that can mean:
- Separate investigations;
- Separate appearances;
- Separate legal representation;
- Separate procedural applications; and
- Potentially separate criminal proceedings arising from substantially overlapping facts.
That is the burden More’s Supreme Court petition seeks to address.
What Has the Supreme Court Done So Far?
The most important latest update in the Pranit More Supreme Court case came on September 21, 2026.
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising:
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi
- Justice V. Mohana
heard More’s plea.
His counsel submitted that the FIRs arose from the same set of facts and circumstances and requested that the Gurugram FIR be clubbed with the Maharashtra FIR.
The Court issued notice to the Union Government, Maharashtra and Haryana seeking their responses.
More’s counsel also told the Court that the comedian had apologised before various forums, including the National Commission for Women, and that he was willing to face trial.
The defence further submitted that More had deleted the video after becoming aware of the seriousness of the controversy and claimed that the video had been uploaded by his public-relations team without his approval. These are submissions made on More’s behalf and remain matters to be considered in the proceedings.
What the Supreme Court Has Not Decided
The September 21 order should not be misunderstood.
The Supreme Court has not:
- Declared More innocent;
- Held that the FIRs are illegal;
- Quashed the criminal cases;
- Determined that no offence was committed;
- Ordered an acquittal; or
- Finally directed the two FIRs to be clubbed.
The Court has, at this stage, issued notice and sought responses.
The substantive question of whether the proceedings should be consolidated remains to be decided.
Why Clubbing of FIRs Matters
The request for clubbing is not the same as a request for acquittal.
The distinction is fundamental.
If two criminal proceedings arise from substantially the same occurrence, conducting parallel proceedings can create practical and procedural difficulties. An accused may have to respond to investigators and courts in different jurisdictions even though the factual foundation of the allegations substantially overlaps.
There can also be a risk of:
- Duplication of investigation;
- Repeated examination of substantially similar evidence;
- Multiple appearances by the accused;
- Overlapping prosecution cases;
- Inconsistent procedural outcomes; and
- Unnecessary multiplicity of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court will therefore have to examine the factual and legal relationship between the Maharashtra and Haryana proceedings before deciding what procedural course is appropriate.
The Audience Member’s Statement and More’s Alleged Role Are Not the Same Legal Question
One aspect of the controversy deserves particular attention.
The controversial ₹370 statement was reportedly made by an audience member, not by Pranit More.
More’s legal exposure arises in the context of the allegations concerning his conduct as host, his response to the exchange and the subsequent circulation of the material.
That distinction matters.
Criminal liability is ordinarily determined by examining the specific conduct attributed to each accused and the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence. The mere fact that several people appear in the same video does not, by itself, establish identical criminal liability.
Ultimately, the prosecution would have to establish the relevant ingredients of the offences against each individual.
At present, those allegations remain allegations.
FIR Is Not a Conviction
This principle is particularly important in cases involving viral social-media controversies.
An FIR records information concerning an alleged offence and sets the criminal investigation in motion. It is not a judicial determination of guilt.
Consequently, the fact that an individual has been named in an FIR should not be treated as proof that the alleged offence has been established.
In the Pranit More Supreme Court case, the Court is presently considering a procedural question concerning multiple criminal proceedings. It is not conducting a trial on the allegations contained in the FIRs.
The presumption of innocence and the accused’s right to contest the allegations remain important safeguards in the criminal justice process.
Legal Provisions Reportedly Invoked
The following provisions have been reported in connection with the proceedings. Their ultimate applicability and satisfaction of the statutory ingredients remain matters for investigation and adjudication.
| Provision | Broad Subject | Relevance Reported in the Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 75(1)(iv), BNS | Sexual harassment, including sexually coloured remarks | Reported among the provisions in the Maharashtra FIR |
| Section 75(3), BNS | Punishment relating to the conduct covered by Section 75(1)(iv) | Reported in the Maharashtra proceedings and in reports concerning the Gurugram case |
| Section 294, BNS | Offences concerning obscene material/acts in circumstances specified by the provision | Invoked in connection with the allegedly objectionable content |
| Section 353(2), BNS | Publication/circulation of specified false information, rumours or alarming news in circumstances covered by the provision | Reported in the Maharashtra FIR |
| Section 67, IT Act, 2000 | Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form | Invoked in connection with the online circulation of the material |
The exact legal ingredients of each provision should not be confused with the allegations made in an FIR. Whether the evidence ultimately establishes the ingredients of any offence is a matter for the criminal process.
The Bigger Legal Question: Can One Viral Incident Produce Multiple Criminal Proceedings?
The Pranit More Supreme Court case raises a question that extends beyond stand-up comedy.
India’s digital environment has changed the geographical character of speech.
A statement made in one city can be recorded on a mobile phone, uploaded from another location, stored on servers elsewhere and viewed throughout the country within minutes.
That creates a difficult jurisdictional problem.
If a single incident produces complaints in several States, when should those complaints be treated as independent offences? When should they be consolidated? And when does multiple prosecution become unnecessary duplication?
These questions become especially significant where the allegations concern online publication or transmission.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in More’s case could therefore have significance beyond this particular controversy, depending on the reasoning adopted by the Court.
Comedy, Free Speech and Criminal Law
The case also sits at the intersection of three competing legal interests.
Freedom of Expression
Comedy, satire and political or social commentary receive protection under the constitutional framework governing freedom of speech and expression.
That protection, however, is not absolute.
Protection Against Criminal Conduct
Speech can attract criminal consequences where the statutory ingredients of a criminal offence are satisfied.
The question in each case is therefore not simply whether material is offensive or unpopular, but whether the conduct falls within the specific offence alleged and whether the prosecution can establish the required ingredients.
Responsibility in the Digital Age
A further complication arises when a live performance becomes online content.
A joke delivered before a limited audience may become a widely distributed digital recording within hours.
The legal consequences may therefore involve not only the original speech but also questions concerning recording, editing, uploading, publication and electronic transmission.
The National Commission for Women and the Public Controversy
The controversy also drew the attention of the National Commission for Women (NCW), which summoned More and Jangra in connection with the episode.
More subsequently apologised publicly. During the Supreme Court hearing, his counsel also referred to apologies made before various forums.
An apology, however, does not automatically determine criminal liability.
Whether an apology has legal significance depends upon the particular offence, the statutory framework, the evidence and the stage of the proceedings.
Pranit More Supreme Court Case: What Happens Next?
The immediate next step is for the respondents to place their responses before the Supreme Court.
The Court will then have to consider the competing positions concerning the Maharashtra and Haryana proceedings.
Several possibilities exist procedurally, including consolidation, transfer, or continuation of proceedings subject to appropriate directions. The precise course will depend on the Court’s assessment of the FIRs, the factual overlap and the applicable law.
It would therefore be premature to treat the September 21 order as a final victory for either side.
The important development is that the Supreme Court has formally taken up the plea and sought responses from the concerned governments.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. |
| Case Number | W.P. (Crl.) No. 367 of 2026 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Petitioner | Pranit More |
| Respondents | Union of India, State of Maharashtra, State of Haryana and others |
| Nature of Petition | Writ petition seeking consolidation/clubbing of FIRs |
| Maharashtra FIR | FIR No. 36/2026 |
| States Involved | Maharashtra and Haryana |
| Latest Development | Supreme Court issued notice on September 21, 2026 |
| Bench | CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana |
| Present Issue | Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the controversy should be clubbed/consolidated |
The case number and cause title have been reported by legal publications covering the September 21 hearing.
Why This Case Deserves Legal Attention
The Pranit More Supreme Court case is not ultimately about whether a particular joke was funny, offensive or socially acceptable.
The more important legal issue is what happens when a single digital controversy generates criminal proceedings across different territorial jurisdictions.
There is an obvious difference between being accused and being convicted.
There is also a difference between seeking consolidation of criminal proceedings and seeking immunity from prosecution.
More’s present position, as reported before the Supreme Court, is that he is prepared to face the trial but wants the proceedings arising from the same controversy to be dealt with together rather than separately in Maharashtra and Haryana.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision may therefore provide useful guidance on the limits of multiple criminal proceedings arising from a single digital incident.
For now, the legal position is straightforward: the allegations against More remain pending, the Supreme Court has not adjudicated his guilt, and the question of clubbing the FIRs remains before the Court.
Key Takeaways
- Pranit More has approached the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of FIRs arising from the ₹370 biryani controversy.
- The FIRs are in Maharashtra and Haryana, arising from the same broad episode.
- Maharashtra Cyber registered FIR No. 36/2026 against More, Himanshu Jangra, Dr Sejal Pawar and others.
- The Supreme Court issued notice on September 21, 2026 to the Centre, Maharashtra and Haryana.
- More’s counsel told the Court that the comedian had apologised and was ready to face trial, but sought clubbing of the proceedings.
- No finding of guilt has been made by the Supreme Court.
- The central procedural issue is whether substantially overlapping criminal proceedings in different States should be consolidated.
- The case also raises broader questions concerning online speech, territorial jurisdiction, digital publication and multiplicity of criminal proceedings.
Legal Perspective
The real significance of the Pranit More Supreme Court case may ultimately lie not in the controversy that triggered it, but in the procedural question now before India’s highest court: how should the criminal justice system respond when one viral digital incident travels across State borders and produces multiple FIRs?
That is a question of criminal procedure, jurisdiction and constitutional fairness—not merely a question about comedy.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information. The allegations referred to are matters pending before the competent authorities/courts and should not be treated as established findings of guilt.
