The Great Mumbai Mythology Audit: A Bureaucratic Comedy

National Sensation Audit: CBI Probes ₹3000-a-Night Mythology, Supreme Court Intervenes

New Delhi, August 18 — In a rare convergence of cultural inflation and investigative curiosity, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has launched a probe into what officials are calling “Project Retroactive Glamour”—an orchestrated attempt to weaponize victimhood for cultural relevance. The investigation centers around a self-described storyteller whose memoirs claim she earned ₹3,000 per night in the early 1980s—an amount that, adjusted for inflation, could have financed a Bajaj scooter in two days, a small bungalow in Bandra in week, or funded a minor political party in a month.

The Mysterious Case of the Invisible Decade

Known for scripting movies such as Day Queen, Silent River, and Unkissed, the storyteller on the eve of her age of senility, has recently re-emerged in public discourse, citing her past as both cautionary tale and cultural capital. However, CBI sources note a peculiar “documentary black hole” spanning 1991-2001, during which the subject appears to have achieved the remarkable feat of existing without leaving any traceable evidence.

“It’s like she was in witness protection,” noted one investigator, “except nobody was protecting her from anything, and there were no witnesses.”

The Economics of Mythmaking

The probe intensified after a team of retired bank clerks calculated that ₹3,000 in 1982 would place the storyteller among India’s highest individual earners—ahead of senior civil servants, successful doctors, and small-time politicians.

“₹3,000 in 1982 is not a wage, it’s a fiscal hallucination,” said one official, requesting anonymity while sipping subsidized tea and recalculating his pension expectations. “At those rates, she should have owned half of Juhu by now, not be looking for work in 2025.”

The investigation took a dramatic turn when forensic accountants discovered that the claimed earnings, if genuine, would have generated enough wealth to independently finance three Bollywood movies. It now raised new questions about why the subject later required the patronage of controversial producers.

The Screenwriting Miracle

Perhaps most puzzling to investigators is what they term “The Great Professional Leap”—the storyteller’s transition from complete industry outsider to accomplished screenwriter with zero documented training, mentorship, or gradual skill development.

“We’ve interviewed everyone from Syd Field’s ghost to the chai-wallah at Film City,” reported Lead Investigator Verma. “Nobody can explain how someone writes blockbuster screenplays without first learning the difference between ‘FADE IN’ and ‘fade away.'”

The investigation revealed that professional screenwriters typically undergo years of training, apprenticeships, and survive rejected drafts, with drinks before achieving success. The subject appears to have bypassed this entirely, leading to theories ranging from “divine intervention” to “highly sophisticated Wikipedia usage.”

The Patron Saint of Problematic Producers

The probe also examined the storyteller’s professional relationship with certain filmmakers known for their… colorful public statements about family relationships and their tendency to make autobiographical films about their own extramarital adventures.

“Birds of same feather,” noted one source, “especially when the feather is tinted with manufactured controversy.”

Supreme Court Intervention: Justice with a Sense of Humor

In an unexpected twist, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter, citing “the urgent need to separate fact from folklore without criminalizing the fundamental right to creative exaggeration.”

During the hearing, Justice B.R. Syntax observed, “If every inflated anecdote were prosecuted, half our cinema would be behind bars, the other half would be in panel discussions, and the remaining half would be teaching acting in Andheri workshops.”

Justice Syntax continued: “The Court recognizes that in the grand tradition of Indian storytelling, from Mughal-e-Azam onwards, numbers have always been more aspirational than mathematical. However, we draw the line at fiscal impossibilities that insult both economics and intelligence.”

The Verdict: Mythology with Judicial Blessing

The bench quashed the CBI’s FIR, stating that “while the ₹3,000 claim may be economically implausible, aesthetically questionable, and professionally incredible, it is artistically consistent with our national tradition of turning personal reinvention into public entertainment.”

However, the Court imposed conditions:

1. All future biographical claims must include inflation-adjusted disclaimers
2. Career transition stories must acknowledge the existence of learning curves
3. The mysterious decade of 1991-2001 must be accounted for, even if the explanation is “I was finding myself in Ajmer.”

Industry Professionals Seek Justice

The case took another colorful turn when Miss Trisha Patakha, Chairperson of the Escorts Association (Registered), attempted to file an intervention petition before the Supreme Court. Her organization argued that the storyteller’s claims had brought “professional disrepute to our hardworking members who maintain industry standards.”

Ms. Patakha’s petition stated: “Our profession operates on market principles of supply and demand, where aesthetic appeal directly correlates with earning potential. The respondent’s claimed rates, given her… shall we say, non-premium market positioning, constitute false advertising that damages our sector’s credibility.”

The petition further argued that accepting the ₹3,000 claim would be “equivalent to believing that a Maruti 800 could command Ferrari prices simply because the owner wrote compelling backstory.”

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the intervention petition, with Justice Syntax noting: “While this Court appreciates the petitioner’s commitment to professional standards, we cannot transform our hallowed chambers into a Miss World-style beauty selection parade. Moreover, questions of aesthetic assessment fall outside our constitutional mandate, though we acknowledge they appear central to market economics in the profession under discussion.”

The Documentary Directive

The Court then directed the National Film Division to commission a documentary titled Queen of the Night Shift: A Mathematical Romance, chronicling the storyteller’s journey from alleged fiscal prodigy to contemporary cultural footnote.

The documentary will be narrated by a retired Doordarshan anchor (the one who pronounced “nuclear” as “nucular” for thirty years), scored by a harmonium left behind in a government bungalow, and feature expert commentary from the All India Institute of Retroactive Accounting.

Epilogue: The Broader Pattern

Legal experts note that this case represents a growing trend of “Victimhood Valorization”—the strategic deployment of hardship narratives to achieve contemporary relevance.

As Justice Syntax noted in his closing remarks: “The Court sympathizes with the human desire to transform struggle into story. However, we must distinguish between lived experience and literary experience, between survival and mythology, and between earning ₹3,000 a night in 1982 and earning credibility in 2025.”

The documentary is expected to premiere on Doordarshan at 11:47 PM on a Tuesday, immediately following a program about the procreating habits of the Kashmir stag.

Disclaimer: This satirical piece is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living, deceased, Institutions or in documentary black holes is purely coincidental. Inflation calculations performed by certified government accountants using genuine Casio calculators.

See also:
Censor Board from Banana Republic.