The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Union Government, the States of Maharashtra and Haryana on a writ petition filed by comedian Pranit for clubbing of FIRs registered against him over the 'Rs.370 biryani' controversy.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

The counsel appearing for More submitted that all the FIRs were identical over the very same allegations. "I have tendered a public apology. Before NCW, I was submitting my apology which they did not accept. I was just the host. I understand the gravity. I am ready to face the trial. I deleted the video before FIR. PR team did not take my approval before publishing the video. I was travelling," the counsel submitted.

To recap, More came under severe public scrutiny after an audience member in his show, namely Himanshu Jangra, made a misogynistic remark suggesting that he expected sexual intimacy in return for having spent Rs. 370 over chicken at a date.

After the comedian laughed alongwith the crowd, and responded to the remark by saying "peak Gurugram content", he faced online backlash over trivialization of consent for sexual intimacy.

While Jangra lost his job over the remark, the Maharashtra Cyber Police lodged an FIR against More, Jangra and 1 other. Reportedly, this FIR was registered under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 294 (sale/distribution of obscene content), 353 (public mischief), 354 (coercing someone to do or omit to do something by inducing fear of divine displeasure) of BNS and Section 67 of the IT Act.

More was also sent summons by the National Commission for Women. In the aftermath, he posted apology videos on his social media handles and said that he "deserved the hate". Recently, he announced his come-back to stand-up comedy with a tour called 'Ghayal'.

A PIL has also been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a comprehensive regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts, live streaming platforms and other user-generated digital content. This PIL cites the "Rs 370 Biryani" controversy as one of the instances demonstrating the need for constitutional safeguards in the digital age.

Case: Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., WP(Crl) No. 367/2026