UK Doctor Denies Anti-PM Allegations, Accuses Police of Criminalizing Political Speech in Bombay HC
In a significant legal development, UK-based doctor and YouTuber Sangram Patil has strongly refuted allegations of posting objectionable content against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP leaders. Patil, who is challenging an FIR and a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, has filed a rejoinder in the Bombay High Court, accusing the police of attempting to criminalize political speech and abuse the criminal process.
Police Claims and Patil's Rebuttal
In an affidavit submitted to the Bombay High Court, the police stated that the investigation against Patil is at a "critical stage" and raised concerns about a potential organized effort to malign constitutional authorities. The police affidavit emphasized, "It is a matter of serious concern, warranting investigation as to why a foreign citizen, despite being a qualified medical professional, visiting India on a Tourist e Visa, has engaged in posting defamatory, scandalous, obscene and inflammatory material without any substance and basis against the Prime Minister of India while residing outside the country."
However, Patil has categorically denied these allegations in his rejoinder. He asserted, "It is categorically denied by me that the said post mentions the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India by name, or makes any direct or indirect reference identifiable exclusively to the Prime Minister. The respondents are assuming, imputing and attributing meanings to the said post which are neither explicit nor inevitable. Criminal prosecution cannot be founded on subjective political interpretation or perceived sentiment."
Details of the Case and Legal Proceedings
Patil was detained on January 10 upon his arrival at Mumbai International Airport and subsequently prevented from leaving the country. The FIR against him was registered based on a complaint by a BJP functionary. In his plea to quash the FIR and LOC, Patil argued that the complaint did not allege any incitement to violence, threat to public order, or disturbance of public tranquility.
In his rejoinder, Patil further stated, "I also deny the allegations seeking to introduce, for the first time, issues relating to obscenity, national integrity, sovereignty, public order, conspiracy or co-ordinated activity. None of these allegations form part of the FIR. It is settled law that deficiencies in an FIR cannot be cured by affidavits or explained during investigation."
A single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin D Bhobe has indicated that efforts will be made to hear Patil's plea on February 17. Patil had sought an urgent hearing, citing that his "job was at stake" due to the state's action of issuing the LOC against him.
Broader Implications and Context
This case highlights ongoing debates about freedom of speech, political dissent, and the use of legal mechanisms in India. Patil's allegations that the police are trying to "chill dissent" and justify an "illegal LOC post-facto" underscore concerns over the potential misuse of criminal processes to suppress political criticism.
The police's claim about a possible organized effort to malign constitutional authorities adds a layer of complexity to the case, suggesting broader geopolitical or ideological dimensions. As the Bombay High Court prepares to hear the matter, the outcome could set important precedents regarding the boundaries of political speech and the accountability of law enforcement agencies in such sensitive cases.
