UK Doctor Sangram Patil Challenges FIR and Lookout Circular in Bombay High Court
In a significant legal development, UK-based doctor and YouTuber Sangram Patil has presented his case before the Bombay High Court, challenging an FIR and a lookout circular issued against him for social media posts allegedly targeting BJP leaders. Patil has emphatically denied that his Facebook post mentioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi by name or made any direct or indirect reference exclusively identifiable to the Prime Minister.
Details of the Legal Challenge
In his rejoinder to the Mumbai police's reply, Patil stated, "It is categorically denied by me that the said post mentions the Prime Minister of India by name, or makes any direct or indirect reference identifiable exclusively to the Prime Minister." He was intercepted at Mumbai airport upon his arrival on January 10 and subjected to questioning. Subsequently, on January 19, he was prevented from leaving India, with the lookout circular not being furnished to him to date, according to his affidavit.
Patil has submitted documentary and oral evidence regarding his post during the investigation, asserting that "there is no need for any further investigation in this respect." He further denied committing any offence or being part of any larger conspiracy, emphasizing that he does not fund nor is funded by any organisation or individual for this purpose.
Jurisdictional and Legal Arguments
The doctor argued that these issues are not mentioned in the FIR and that "police do not have the jurisdiction to expand the investigation beyond the post." He expressed concerns over the police's intent, stating, "Police's intent to catch hold of my other digital devices and implicate me in similar false cases is evident from the fact that they are asking irrelevant information and instruments."
Regarding allegations of "promotion of enmity," Patil contended they are baseless and legally unsustainable. He explained that for such an offence, the essential condition is the existence of two or more identifiable groups and an act promoting hatred based on religion, race, language, region, caste, or community. "Police are attempting to innovate a new group of followers and non-followers of a political leader," he added, questioning the validity of the charges.
Background and Implications
This case highlights ongoing tensions between freedom of expression and legal boundaries in digital spaces. Patil's challenge raises critical questions about police jurisdiction, the scope of investigations, and the interpretation of laws related to social media content. As the Bombay High Court considers his arguments, the outcome could set precedents for similar cases involving online posts and political figures.
The legal proceedings continue, with Patil seeking clarity and resolution on the FIR and lookout circular, while maintaining his stance on the non-specific nature of his Facebook post. The court's decision will be closely watched by legal experts and digital rights advocates alike.
