Bombay High Court Seeks Maharashtra Government's Response in UK Doctor's Social Media Case
The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Maharashtra state government to file its reply to a petition filed by UK-based doctor and YouTuber Sangram Patil, who has sought the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and a lookout circular (LOC) issued against him by Mumbai police. The legal action stems from social media posts allegedly made against certain Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders.
Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments
Justice Ashwin Bhobe was hearing the plea filed by Dr. Sangram Patil, who requested an immediate stay on further investigations and any coercive action pending the hearing of his petition. The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 4, 2024, allowing time for the state to present its position.
Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Patil, argued that his client had voluntarily traveled from the United Kingdom to India and was completely unaware of the registration of the FIR against him. In response, Advocate General Milind Sathe contended that there appeared to be some connection to other posts which is similar to this and suggested that Patil might be linked to those. He further stated that the authorities believe he is connected with that and accused Patil of not cooperating with the investigation.
Details of the FIR and Police Action
The FIR in question was registered on December 18, 2023, by the N M Joshi Marg police station under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This specific section criminalizes the act of making or circulating statements containing false information, rumors, or alarming news with the intent to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will between different religious, racial, linguistic, regional groups, castes, or communities.
Within days of the FIR being filed, a lookout circular was issued against Patil. According to the petition, on January 10, 2024, Patil and his wife were intercepted at Mumbai International Airport at approximately 2:00 AM. He was subsequently taken to the Crime Branch Unit 3 office located at N M Joshi Marg and questioned for an extensive period of 14 hours. This interrogation was conducted in connection with a complaint filed by Nikhil Bhamre, who serves as the social media coordinator for the BJP, regarding two specific social media posts.
After the lengthy questioning session, Patil was allowed to leave. He later appeared before the police on January 16 to formally record his statement. However, on January 19, he was prevented from boarding a flight to the United Kingdom, with authorities citing the active lookout circular as the reason for the travel restriction.
Content of the Alleged Social Media Posts
The petition provides crucial details about the nature of the posts that triggered the legal action. It states that the FIR references two posts made on December 14, 2023, which were allegedly directed against prominent BJP leaders. While the first post originated from Patil's own social media account, the second post was not posted by him according to his legal team.
The petition emphatically argues that the petitioner cannot be assigned any responsibility for what others have posted on their wall, highlighting a fundamental concern about accountability for shared content. Regarding the post that Patil did share from his handle, the petition describes it as containing a single line and clarifies that the statement is about the silence of party followers and paid trolls. Notably, the post does not mention the full name of any specific BJP leader.
Furthermore, the petition points out that the original complaint filed by the BJP's social media coordinator fails to specify exactly which BJP leader has been allegedly defamed by these posts. This lack of specificity forms a significant part of Patil's legal challenge.
Legal Grounds for Challenging the FIR
Patil's legal team has raised several substantive objections to the FIR and the subsequent actions taken by the authorities:
- The FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts in their entirety, making it difficult to assess their actual content and context.
- The document fails to clearly state how the ingredients of Section 353(2) of the BNS are disclosed by the posts in question.
- The petition characterizes the posts as constituting statement of facts and expressions of free speech rather than criminal content.
- It suggests that the allegations stem from political disagreement rather than legitimate legal violations.
The petition makes the serious allegation that Patil is being subjected to harassment to teach a lesson to other people and claims that the police mechanically registered the FIR without proper scrutiny. It also highlights the practical consequences for Patil, noting that he may lose his job if he is unable to return to the United Kingdom due to the travel restrictions imposed by the lookout circular.
This case brings into focus the complex intersection of free speech, social media regulation, and political expression within India's legal framework, particularly under the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions regarding online content.
