A UK-based Indian-origin doctor has approached the Bombay High Court challenging an FIR filed against him for allegedly making objectionable remarks against BJP leaders, terming the case an attempt to criminalise political dissent.
Doctor Stranded in India Due to Lookout Circular
The doctor, Sangram Patil, informed the court that a Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against him has prevented him from returning to the United Kingdom, where he works as a consultant with the National Health Service.
The LOC, issued by Mumbai Police, has kept him stranded in Mumbai for nearly three months, impacting his professional responsibilities.
FIR Linked to Social Media Remarks
The FIR was registered in December last year, alleging that Patil made critical comments on social media targeting BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
He faces charges related to promoting enmity between groups, a serious offence under Indian law.
Petition Claims Political Motivation
Appearing for Patil, senior counsel Rajiv Shakdher argued before Justice Ashwin Bhobe that the FIR is politically motivated and aimed at suppressing dissent.
The plea asserts that the case represents an attempt to criminalise free speech and political expression.
Doctor Assures Cooperation with Probe
Seeking permission to travel back to the UK, Patil told the court he is willing to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. He has offered to file an affidavit assuring his continued participation in the probe.
His counsel highlighted that Patil has already appeared before the police multiple times for questioning and has not been summoned since January, arguing that custodial interrogation is not required.
State Opposes Plea
Opposing the petition, Advocate General Milind Sathe contended that the doctor’s social media posts promote hatred and enmity between communities, justifying the police action.
Hearing Scheduled for April 15
The High Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter for April 15, where it will consider the doctor’s request to quash the FIR and lift travel restrictions.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between free speech and legal restrictions on content deemed inflammatory in India.
