Mumbai: An Indian-born British doctor and YouTuber, Dr Sangram Patil, is currently under the Mumbai Police lens over his social media post on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
So far, the Bombay High Court has not decided anything and is instead examining the legality of the FIR and travel restrictions on Patil. The situation has prevented him from travelling home to the UK over the past three months.
The case originated in a 14 December complaint by Nikhil Bhamre, social media head of the BJP Maharashtra unit. The FIR was filed on 18 December at N.M. Joshi Marg police station in Lower Parel.
Bhamre’s complaint said Patil uploaded “objectionable and defamatory content on Facebook that was misleading and capable of disturbing public harmony”, the FIR has mentioned.
“On Modi’s sex scandal, there is utter silence among BJP andh bhakts (blind devotees) and 40 other people given money,” Patil wrote on Facebook on 14 December 2025. The link to his post is included in the FIR.
Dr Sangram Patil, a British national of Indian origin and consultant with the UK’s National Health Service, maintains professional and personal ties in India.
He is active on social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook under his own name. Currently, he has 4,73,000 subscribers on YouTube.
His online activity largely involves commentary on public affairs and political developments—something he has said he does under his right to free speech.
Patil told the high court that he was in India on a tourist visa when the FIR was registered. He had travelled to Mumbai for a short personal visit before returning to the UK.
He said the look out circular (LOC) barred him from leaving India, disrupting his medical work in the UK for nearly three months.
The FIR invokes the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provisions, 2023, primarily Section 353(2), which concerns publishing statements or information through electronic means to promote hatred, enmity or ill-will between groups. Further, Mumbai Police have cited Section 356 of the BNS, relating to criminal defamation, alleging that the posts harmed the reputation of public figures.
In an affidavit filed at the High Court on 6 February, the police maintained that “the content went beyond permissible political criticism” and that an investigation was required “to determine whether there was a larger, coordinated attempt to malign constitutional authorities”.
Patil categorically denied these allegations in a rejoinder affidavit filed on 9 February.
A BJP functionary who did not wish to be named told ThePrint, “I scroll on social media for nearly 12 hours every day. I came across this post and immediately flagged it and found the name of the person who posted it. Not identically the same, but a post on similar lines was on another page [‘Shahar Vikas Aghadi’]—that was flagged and is also mentioned in the complaint. The post on the other page does not exist anymore, but the police will be better able to identify them [and probe] thoroughly.”
Sequence of events
Mumbai Police—hours after Bhamre’s FIR—issued a LOC against the doctor and began the probe.
Patil landed in Mumbai from the United Kingdom on 10 January. Mumbai Police Crime Branch immediately detained and questioned him at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
Afterwards, the doctor was allowed to leave. But at the same time, he was asked to cooperate with the probe. Patil appeared before the police on 15 January to record his statement.
When he tried to fly to the UK on 16 January, he was stopped owing to the active LOC.
He made a second attempt on 19 January but failed. Thus, he has remained stranded in India for nearly three months.
Patil then approached the Bombay High Court on 22 January to quash the FIR and the LOC. The following day, the court issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the Mumbai Police, directing them to file responses.
Also Read: BMC power tussle—BJP, Shinde Sena agree on mayor post, but haggle over standing committee chairships
6 Feb. police affidavit
Opposing Patil’s petition, Mumbai Police filed an affidavit on 6 February—sworn by none other than the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Detection) Raj Tilak Roushan. He told the court that “the criminal action against Patil was not arbitrary but necessary to safeguard the image of India, and the dignity of the Prime Minister at the international forum and to protect national integrity”.
The affidavit said Patil had circulated posts capable of promoting disharmony and enmity between communities and had uploaded “indecent, derisive, degrading and salacious content” on the PM.
It further alleged that Patil attempted to evade Indian law enforcement by operating through foreign IP addresses and digital intermediaries, continuing to upload “inflammatory and scandalous content” even after the investigation against him began in December 2025.
“I say that petitioner Dr Sangram Patil, a foreign national holding United Kingdom citizenship, has posted content on Facebook, making serious and scandalous allegations of a lascivious nature against the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,” the police affidavit stated.
It said another Facebook account, ‘Shahar Vikas Aghadi’, posted similar content during the same period, suggesting that this was a coordinated activity.
Justifying the LOC, the police submitted that Patil’s foreign residence, frequent international travel, cross-border digital operations, and seriousness of offences warranted preventive action.
“The LOC was issued through competent authorities in accordance with law as a preventive and regulatory measure to secure the presence of the accused and ensure that he does not abscond or evade due process,” their affidavit said.
Police told the court that “at this stage, the possibility that such acts form part of a larger, organised effort aimed at maligning constitutional authority and disturbing public order cannot be ruled out”.
The affidavit also alleged non-cooperation by Patil, claiming that he refused to grant full access to his Facebook account, gave evasive answers, and cited technical difficulties in accessing the account due to a one-time password being linked to a device in the UK.
Also Read: A winter bloom in city: How Pink Trumpet trees briefly soften Mumbai’s Eastern Express
9 Feb. Patil’s rejoinder
Patil filed a rejoinder on 9 February, and his affidavit strongly disputed police claims.
The doctor asserted that he cooperated with the investigation, appeared before the Crime Branch, and that “no custodial interrogation has been sought so far”.
Patil “categorically denied” that the “said post mentions the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India by name or makes any direct or indirect reference identifiable exclusively to the Prime Minister”. He added that the police were attributing meanings based on “subjective political interpretation”.
The doctor accused the police of attempting to “criminalise political speech, justify an illegal LOC post facto, chill dissent, and abuse the criminal process.”
He pointed out that allegations relating to obscenity, national integrity, sovereignty, public order, or conspiracy were not part of the FIR and could not be introduced through affidavits.
He further argued that political criticism, even if harsh or unpalatable, did not amount to promotion of enmity between groups, pointing out that the FIR failed to identify any such groups, as required under the law. Further, Patil denied any association with the ‘Shahar Vikas Aghadi’ account and rejected allegations of coordinated activity or conspiracy.
Questioning the police’s insistence on seizing his devices, Patil stated that he admitted authorship of the post in question and submitted documentary and oral evidence to that effect. He also denied allegations that he continued posting derogatory content after learning about the FIR.
“The impugned FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts verbatim, does not specify which sentence constitutes an offence, and does not disclose how the statutory ingredients of Section 353(2) BNS are attracted,” Patil said, adding that no defamation case had been filed by any individual related to his posts.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 17 February, when the high court is expected to consider whether the FIR and travel restrictions imposed on the doctor can be legally sustained, or whether he can be allowed to get back home after three months.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Denmark to Mumbai’s Coastal Road. Which other cities have musical roads?