Bombay HC Seeks State’s Reply on FIR, LOC Against UK Doctor Over Facebook Post on PM
The Bombay High Court is hearing a plea challenging an FIR and Look-Out Circular issued against a UK-based doctor over a Facebook post concerning the Prime Minister and BJP leaders.
The Bombay High Court is hearing a petition challenging an FIR and a Look-Out Circular issued against a UK-based doctor over a Facebook post concerning the Prime Minister and other BJP leaders, raising questions about the intersection of free speech, defamation and the State’s duty to safeguard public order.
Notice was issued to the State of Maharashtra, seeking their response on the continuation of the LOC and the criminal proceedings.
The case concerns Dr. Sangram Patil, a British national of Indian origin and a consultant with the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS). Patil maintains professional and personal ties in India and is active on social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook under his own name.
He currently has approximately 4,73,000 subscribers on YouTube, where he regularly comments on public affairs and political developments, activity he states is undertaken in exercise of his right to free speech.
In an affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dr. Sangram Patil made “serious and scandalous allegations of a lascivious nature” against the Prime Minister on Facebook;
"I say that Petitioner Dr. Sangram Patil, a foreign national holding United Kingdom citizenship, has posted content on Facebook from his account making serious and scandalous allegations of a lascivious nature against the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. I further say that during the same time frame. another Facebook account operating under the name Shahar Vikas Aghadi posted content linking the PM with a woman, accompanied by obscene remarks," the affidavit reads.
The FIR stems from a Facebook post dated 14.12.2025. As reported, Patil wrote:
“On Modi’s sex scandal, there is utter silence among BJP andh bhakts and 40 other people given money.” [translated]
According to the complainant, the post was defamatory, misleading and capable of disturbing public harmony.
The complaint alleged that the content contained insinuations targeting the Prime Minister and the ruling party, without any cogent evidence, thereby warranting criminal investigation.
Patil has mainly contended before the High Court that the post did not explicitly name the Prime Minister and that it amounted to political commentary rather than a criminal act. He has also argued that criticism of those in power, even if sharply worded, falls within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech.
Following the complaint, Mumbai Police registered an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to defamation and public mischief. Subsequently, a Look-Out Circular was issued against Patil.
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 and was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom when he was stopped at the airport. He was questioned by the Crime Branch and later released, but the LOC continued to remain in operation, preventing his departure on subsequent occasions.
Before the High Court, Patil also argued that he had cooperated fully with investigators and posed no flight risk, given his stable employment and residence in the UK. He submitted that the continuation of the LOC has adversely affected his professional commitments with the NHS. It was also informed by Patil to the Court that though he had posted the content on Facebook, “the said post does not mention the Prime Minister of India by name, or make any direct or indirect reference identifiable exclusively to the Prime Minister.”
The State defended the FIR and the LOC; It submitted that given the petitioner’s substantial online following, over 4.7 lakh subscribers, the post required detailed examination to assess its impact. The prosecution argued that allegations of scandal involving high constitutional functionaries, when disseminated widely, could potentially erode public confidence and disturb public order.
The State further contended that allowing Patil to leave India at this stage might hamper the investigation and that the LOC was issued in accordance with established procedure.
The matter remains pending before the High Court where it is expected to examine whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and whether the continued restraint on international travel satisfies constitutional standards of necessity and proportionality.