Every week, the internet finds a new obsession—viral trends, celebrity spats, social media personalities. This week, it is stand-up comedian Pranit More. A clip from one of his recent crowd work in Gurugram spiralled across social media, drawing millions of views, criticism, and, eventually, FIRs from the cyber cells of the police of two states.
In the now-viral clip, audience member Himanshu Jangra recounted a date where, after spending ₹370 on a plate of chicken biryani, he implied he expected returns. “Maine kaha ki ₹370 lage hain to use to wasool to karunga hi,” he says, prompting More to respond with, “Peak Gurgaon content”, before laughing along with the audience. In later clips from the same show, Jangra goes on to describe forcing intimacy with his date while More continues the interaction. Older clips have since resurfaced, an FIR was registered against More and the two audience members, one person lost his job, and another came under scrutiny over her medical ethics.
Together, the incidents have reignited a larger question: when crowd work veers into disturbing territory, who bears responsibility?
The dilemma
Unlike a scripted set, crowd work depends on spontaneity, where the audience becomes part of the performance while the comedian remains its conductor. For many, that distinction is central to understanding why the backlash is centred on More rather than solely on the audience member.
Comedian Koushik Bhattacharya, who runs The Mic Room in Noida and Laugh Palace in Connaught Place, notes that although the audience member continued making vulgar remarks, More did little to stop him. “If what he’s saying is ringing so wrong in your ears, then you find a way to defuse that situation. You let the audience know this is not acceptable,” notes comedian Neeti Palta. “You’re the comedian. You’re in charge. This is your show.”
Bhattacharya adds that the incident reflected a larger problem within crowd-work-heavy comedy. “If you see Pranit’s videos, he’s minting content from the audience. He just let it go wherever it was going.” Delhi publicist and stand-up regular Pooja Saha says: “If someone sitting next to me says something deeply disturbing, I’d expect the comedian to shut it down immediately instead of rewarding it with laughs”.
The audience in the act
Crowd work is one of comedy’s most popular formats online. Audiences know there is a possibility of ending up in a viral clip, and many arrive prepared to become part of the act. Public relations professional and a frequent stand-up attendee Neha Bahri says that responsibility flows both ways. “There has to be a line where people’s sentiments are not hurt,” she says. Saha agrees, adding that audiences often become so comfortable that they reveal far more than they intend to.
Comedian Dhruv questions whether audience storytelling should occupy so much space in stand-up at all. “Letting the audience bring in their stories is a very bad idea in a stand-up comedy show as unlike comedians, the former have neither rehearsed nor refined what they say,” he says. “As important as it is to separate the art from the artist, it is equally important to separate a non-artist from the art form,” he adds. “When comedians write something—even if it’s gross, obscene or nasty—it gets tested in different rooms, under different circumstances.”
The viral clip economy
Social media has made comedy accessible to everyone, not just the people who buy tickets. Days after the Gurugram clip went viral, another video from one of More’s older shows resurfaced, this time, featuring audience member Dr Sejal Pawar making remarks comparing the private parts of cadavers. Delhi comedian Madhur Virli also faced backlash after a clip from a two-year-old performance resurfaced online.
For comedians, this reflects a new challenge: shows are no longer judged as complete performances but through isolated moments optimised for algorithms. “Many content creators nowadays, if they don’t have content, simply pick stand-up comics and start ranting about them,” says Bhattacharya. “Before Instagram, audiences saw the whole performance. Now they often see only 30 seconds, without context.”
The pursuit of viral content has also changed audience behaviour. “Many audience members treat crowd work like a therapy session, confession booth, or personal podcast. They start giving unsolicited opinions and sharing things nobody asked for,” adds Saha.
The cost of going viral
Following the backlash, More, Jangra and Pawar, all apologised publicly. The Maharashtra Cyber Cell registered an FIR against the three. Jangra reportedly lost his job, while the All India Medical Students’ Association said it had constituted a committee to examine the allegations involving Pawar.
For many comedians, however, the debate extends beyond whether the remarks were offensive to whether the consequences have become disproportionate. “For a comedian, the worst punishment is being called a bad comedian,” says political satirist Sanjay Rajoura. He adds that the response has been disproportionate. “The comments were neither funny nor intelligent. They were in bad taste. But is it worth someone losing his job?”
Palta questions why public outrage often appears more intense over viral comedy clips than over systemic issues. “If you’re going to outrage, then outrage over things like the NEET paper leak, trees being cut or people not being held accountable.” Rajoura believes the episode reflects a broader tendency towards disproportionate outrage. “There are many issues in this country that are far more serious than a guy making a stupid remark in a show.”
He argues that misogyny cannot be addressed through individual public shaming alone. “If we want to address misogyny in our society, it won’t happen by crucifying this boy and taking away his livelihood. It’s a structural change that has to happen at every level—government, family, education and popular culture. This knee-jerk reaction is only satisfying the bloodlust of some people.”