The Bombay High Court is currently examining a significant legal battle centered on the boundaries of political speech and the criminalization of social media commentary. Dr. Sangram Patil, a UK-based physician and popular YouTuber, has approached the court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for allegedly making derogatory posts about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders.
The case has sparked a debate on whether criticism of the government can be equated to "promoting enmity" under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Dr. Sangram Patil, a British national of Indian origin and a consultant anesthesiologist in the UK, was detained at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport on January 10, 2026. He was in India to visit his family in Jalgaon. Upon his arrival, he was informed of a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, stemming from an FIR registered in December 2025 at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station.
The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Nikhil Bhamre, the head of the BJP’s Media Cell. The complaint alleged that Dr. Patil shared "objectionable, defamatory, and obscene" content on a Facebook page titled 'Shehar Vikas Aghadi,' intended to spread disinformation and incite hostility against the ruling party.
Appearing for Dr. Patil, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola argued before a single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe that the criminal case is a classic example of "political vendetta."
The defense contended that the specific social media post mentioned in the FIR does not even name the Prime Minister. According to Dr. Patil’s legal team, the police are "attributing meanings" to a general political critique and using it to criminalize legitimate dissent. The defense emphasized that expressing a different political opinion—even a sharp one—cannot be categorized as an offense under Section 353(2) of the BNS, which deals with spreading false information to create enmity between groups.
“The law is being misused to suppress dissenting political views. A citizen, even a foreign national of Indian origin, has the right to comment on the political landscape without fearing immediate incarceration or travel bans,” the petitioner argued.
On the other hand, the Mumbai Police, represented by Advocate General Milind Sathe, defended the FIR and the Look Out Circular. In a detailed affidavit, the police claimed that Dr. Patil’s activities might be part of a "larger, organized effort" to malign constitutional authorities and disturb public order.
The police expressed concern over a foreign citizen visiting India on a tourist visa while engaging in "scandalous and inflammatory" digital commentary from abroad. They further alleged that Dr. Patil has not been fully cooperative with the investigation, refusing to provide full access to his digital devices and social media credentials for forensic analysis.
“The investigation is at a crucial stage. We need to ascertain if there are local collaborators or handlers in India who facilitated the dissemination of this content to attack the dignity of the Prime Minister,” the police affidavit stated.
The case brings several critical legal questions to the forefront:
- Free Speech vs. Public Order: Does criticism of a political leader or a political party automatically qualify as "promoting enmity" or "disturbing public order"?
- Rights of Foreign Nationals: To what extent can a foreign national (especially an OCI/British citizen) engage in political commentary while on a tourist visa in India?
- The Threshold of BNS Section 353(2): Does the provision require the "circulation of false information" as a mandatory prerequisite for an offense?
Dr. Patil’s counsel informed the court that the doctor is an MD in Anaesthetics and is currently employed in the UK. The Look Out Circular has prevented him from returning to his job, causing significant financial loss and professional jeopardy. The court was urged to allow him to travel back, as he had already appeared for questioning multiple times.
The Bombay High Court has refused to grant the State further adjournments and is expected to pass a definitive order on the quashing of the FIR and the LOC in the coming sessions.
The outcome of Dr. Sangram Patil v. State of Maharashtra will likely set a major precedent for how Indian courts view online political criticism in the age of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. As the court balances the State’s concerns about national integrity with the fundamental right to free expression, the legal community watches closely to see where the line for "criminal speech" will be drawn.