UK Doctor Stranded in India Over Social Media Post on PM Modi, Awaits High Court Relief
An Indian-born British doctor has been unable to return to his home in the United Kingdom for the past three months after Mumbai Police issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him. The action stems from a social media post concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leading to a legal battle currently under scrutiny by the Bombay High Court.
Details of the Case and Allegations
Dr Sangram Patil, a consultant with the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and a YouTuber boasting over 473,000 subscribers, traveled to India on a tourist visa for a brief personal visit. Upon landing at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai on January 10, 2026, he was detained and questioned by the Mumbai Police Crime Branch. Subsequent attempts to depart the country have been blocked due to the LOC.
The controversy originated from a Facebook post made by Patil on December 14, 2025. In the post, he wrote, “On Modi’s s** scandal, there is utter silence among BJP andh bhakts (blind devotees) and 40 other people given money.” On the same day, Nikhil Bhamre, the social media head of the Maharashtra unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), filed a complaint. An FIR was registered on December 18 at the N.M. Joshi Marg police station in Lower Parel, alleging that Patil uploaded “objectionable and defamatory content on Facebook that was misleading and capable of disturbing public harmony.”
Police Affidavit and Counterarguments
In an affidavit filed on February 6, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Detection) Raj Tilak Roushan opposed Patil's petition. The police claimed that Patil circulated posts promoting disharmony and enmity between communities, describing the content as “indecent, derisive, degrading and salacious” regarding the Prime Minister. They further alleged that Patil attempted to evade Indian law enforcement by using foreign IP addresses and digital intermediaries, continuing to upload “inflammatory and scandalous content” even after the investigation began in December 2025.
The affidavit stated, “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.” Police argued that these actions could be part of a larger, organized effort to malign constitutional authority and disturb public order, accusing Patil of non-cooperation by refusing full access to his Facebook account.
Patil's Defense and Rejoinder
In a rejoinder filed on February 9, Patil denied all allegations. He asserted that he cooperated fully with investigators, appeared before the Crime Branch, and noted that “no custodial interrogation has been sought so far.” Patil challenged the police's interpretation, stating that the post did not mention the Prime Minister by name or make any direct or indirect reference exclusively identifiable to him. He accused the police of attributing meanings based on “subjective political interpretation.”
Patil further argued that the police were attempting to “criminalise political speech, justify an illegal LOC post facto, chill dissent, and abuse the criminal process.” Regarding the demand to seize his devices, he maintained that he had already admitted authorship of the post and provided both documentary and oral evidence. He also denied publishing derogatory content after the FIR was filed.
He pointed out that the FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts verbatim, specify which sentence constitutes an offence, or disclose how the statutory ingredients of Section 353(2) BNS are attracted.
Legal Proceedings and Next Steps
The Bombay High Court has not yet ruled on Patil's petition but is examining the legality of both the FIR and the travel restriction. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on February 17, where the court is expected to consider whether the FIR and travel restrictions can be legally sustained or if Patil can be allowed to return home to the UK.
This case highlights ongoing tensions between freedom of speech and legal accountability in India, particularly involving foreign nationals and social media content related to high-profile political figures.
