.webp)
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking the establishment of a comprehensive regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts, and user-generated digital content. The petition, filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that recent viral controversies demonstrate a critical need for institutional safeguards to protect public decency and constitutional dignity in the digital age.
The plea specifically highlights the "Rs 370 Biryani" episode, which originated from a stand-up comedy show hosted by Pranit More. During a "crowd work" segment, an audience member shared an account of a date where he suggested that spending Rs 370 on a meal entitled him to sexual favours from a woman. The petitioner argues that while the incident itself may not warrant individual penal action, its algorithmic amplification by social media platforms transformed an isolated interaction into a national discourse on consent and the dignity of women.
The controversy resulted in significant real-world consequences, including the termination of his employment at a Gurugram-based firm and the registration of a case by the Maharashtra Cyber Police. The National Commission for Women (NCW) also took suo motu cognisance, summoning the involved parties and seeking an action-taken report from the Haryana Police. The petition notes that a longer version of the video later surfaced, showing more graphic details of the encounter while the performer and audience laughed, further intensifying public outrage.
In addition to the biryani row, the PIL cites a controversy involving an MBBS student, Sejal Pawar, who made insensitive remarks about male cadavers during the same show, which the petitioner claims undermined the dignity of deceased persons. The plea also references the spread of misinformation regarding the All India Judges' Badminton Championship. False narratives claimed that the Chief Justice of India and other judges traveled to the UK at public expense, when the event actually took place in New Delhi. The petitioner highlights that such misleading material attains extraordinary circulation before official clarifications can reach the public.
The petition argues that existing legal mechanisms are predominantly reactive, becoming operational only after false or degrading information has already achieved irreversible virality and contends that in a country with high digital exposure, particularly among children, the lack of responsibility in digital architecture necessitates a framework consistent with the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Among the primary reliefs sought is the constitution of an Independent Judicial Commission, to recommend ways to stop the dissemination of false digital narratives. The plea also requests the formation of an Expert Committee to examine the impact of unrestricted social media exposure on children below 16 years and to propose age verification mechanisms. Finally, the petitioner calls for the Union of India to draft a statutory framework for regulating podcasts, stand-up comedy, and other user-generated content to ensure a balance between freedom of expression and social accountability.
Case title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., Diary No.38757/2026
