The ‘₹370 Biryani’ controversy, which spread like wildfire on social media, has now taken a new and bigger turn. After a huge uproar across the country, this whole matter has now reached the doorstep of the country’s biggest court i.e. the Supreme Court. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the court demanding that a strict system be created to control all types of digital content served on the internet. The petition advocates the creation of a comprehensive regulatory framework for all digital content generated by users, including stand-up comedy, podcasts and live-streaming platforms.

This petition, filed by lawyer Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 of the Constitution, emphasizes that the ‘₹370 biryani’ incident is not just a controversy, but it clearly shows the biggest and most important need for constitutional protection in the digital age. The petitioner says that even if no direct legal action is taken against the comedian or content creator involved in this incident, this case definitely explains how social media algorithms make any controversial statement reach crores of people within minutes, which has a very bad impact on people’s thinking towards safety, consent and respect of women in the society.

After all, how did this whole controversy start?

If you are unaware of this whole matter, then let us tell you that this entire controversy started from a live show of stand-up comedian Praneet More. During the show, a man named Himanshu Jangra from Gurugram, sitting among the audience, narrated the story of one of his dates. He claimed that he had spent the money on biryani worth ₹370 for a girl. He then wanted to “recoup” his money in exchange for the girl dropping him home. He said that if a woman is fed biryani worth ₹ 370, then the man gets full right to have a relationship with her. As soon as the video of this objectionable thinking and conversation surfaced on social media, a big debate broke out across the country regarding the respect of women.

It is very important to fix accountability for digital content

According to the petition filed in the Supreme Court, such incidents clearly indicate that in today’s digital world, along with the technology to make content go viral indiscriminately, it has become very important to have a strong accountability system. The petitioner clarified that the purpose of this legal battle is not at all to restrict the freedom of any kind of humor, satire or artists. Rather, the real constitutional issue is whether when such objectionable content goes viral across the country, whether citizens should have governmental or institutional safeguards to protect the rights and dignity guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

What is the demand made in the petition to the Supreme Court?

In this PIL, a demand has been made to direct the Central Government and the concerned departments to closely investigate the misleading, derogatory and defamatory material being spread indiscriminately on different social media platforms and digital websites. For this, a request has been made to the court to form an expert committee, which can keep an eye on such content available on the internet and can prepare strict rules to prevent videos and statements that promote wrong thinking in the society from going viral.