उच्चतम न्यायालय (Supreme Court) ने हास्य कलाकार प्रनीत मोरे की याचिका पर महाराष्ट्र और हरियाणा सरकार को नोटिस जारी किया है, जिसमें उन्होंने एक लाइव शो के वायरल वीडियो को लेकर अलग-अलग राज्यों में दर्ज प्राथमिकियों (FIRs) को एक साथ जोड़ने (clubbing) की मांग की है।
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a petition filed by stand-up comedian Pranit More, seeking to combine multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against him in different states following a controversial interaction during a live comedy show.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, issued formal notices to the state governments of Maharashtra and Haryana. The court called for their responses regarding the request to transfer and merge the legal proceedings into a single jurisdiction.
Background of the Controversy
The legal dispute stems from an excerpt of a crowd-work segment recorded during a live stand-up show hosted by More in Gurugram, Haryana. During the show, an audience member, identified as Himanshu Jangra, made remarks referencing spending ₹370 on a biryani dinner during a date and expressing an expectation of sexual favors in return. More, who was anchoring the event, interacted with the audience member during this dialogue.
After a clip of the exchange was uploaded online, it went viral across social media channels, triggering substantial public backlash and criticism over the nature of the remarks concerning gender dynamics and sexual consent.
Following the viral reach of the clip:
- Maharashtra Cyber Police initiated the first criminal action by registering an FIR against More and associated parties for circulating objectionable media content.
- National Commission for Women (NCW) took administrative cognizance of the video, issuing summonses to both More and the audience member over the nature of the discussion.
- Gurugram Police subsequently filed a second FIR in Haryana, acting on a formal complaint submitted by the NCW.
Key Submissions Before the Supreme Court
Appearing before the top court, legal counsel representing More clarified that the artist is not attempting to stall judicial proceedings or seek complete quashing of the criminal cases at this stage. Instead, the petition requests that the Haryana FIR be clubbed with the earlier registered Maharashtra FIR so that trial proceedings can take place in one unified court.
More's legal representatives highlighted several procedural and factual arguments:
- Identity of Cause of Action: Both criminal complaints originate from the same underlying factual matrix—specifically, the single live comedy event in Gurugram and the subsequent online publication of the recorded segment.
- Readiness to Face Trial: The petitioner expressed willingness to submit to judicial scrutiny and participate in trial proceedings, arguing only that facing parallel prosecutions across different states causes undue hardship and duplicative legal processes.
- Prior Apology: Counsel pointed out that More had issued public apologies across public channels and attempted to submit written statements to regulatory bodies, including the NCW, expressing remorse for failing to intervene or stop the inappropriate comments during the event.
- Publication Context: The defense informed the bench that the video segment was uploaded to social platforms by More's public relations management team without his prior direct review or authorization while he was traveling. Counsel emphasized that once the severity of the controversy was understood, More promptly deleted the video prior to the registration of criminal complaints.
Legal Principles on Multiple FIRs
The practice of seeking the consolidation or "clubbing" of multiple FIRs is governed by established legal precedents laid down by Indian courts regarding fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Personal Liberty and Fair Trial) and protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when multiple complaints arise out of the same alleged offense or form part of the same transaction, courts frequently permit the consolidation of investigations or trials to prevent conflicting verdicts, redundant administrative expenses, and harassment of the accused.
Current Status and Next Steps
By issuing notices to the state authorities of Maharashtra and Haryana, the Supreme Court has opened the door to centralize the proceedings. The respondent states are expected to file their formal affidavits outlining whether they object to or support transferring the cases into a single forum.
Until the Supreme Court delivers a final ruling on the consolidation petition, the legal proceedings and investigative steps across both jurisdictions will remain subject to further orders from the highest court.
Description: The Supreme Court of India issued notices to Maharashtra and Haryana regarding stand-up comedian Pranit More’s petition to consolidate two FIRs filed against him. The legal trouble stems from a viral video of a live show in Gurugram, where an audience member made objectionable remarks about spending ₹370 on a date and expecting sexual favors.
Following public outrage, the Maharashtra Cyber Police and Gurugram Police registered separate cases, while the National Commission for Women issued summons. More's counsel informed the court that he had issued a public apology and deleted the video, which was uploaded without his prior approval. More stated he is ready to face trial but requested clubbing the FIRs to avoid duplicate proceedings.