Doctor Challenges FIR: Is Political Speech Being Criminalised in India?

A UK-based doctor is fighting an FIR in India, arguing that it's a politically motivated attempt to suppress free speech and dissent following his critical remarks against BJP leaders on social media.

Key Points

UK-based doctor Sangram Patil challenges FIR, alleging it criminalises political speech against BJP leaders.
Patil seeks permission to return to the UK, assuring continued cooperation with the police investigation.
The FIR was lodged against Patil for critical remarks on social media against BJP leaders, sparking debate on free speech.
The Bombay High Court is hearing the case, with the Advocate General arguing Patil's content promotes enmity between groups.

Britain-based doctor Sangram Patil on Monday told the Bombay High Court the FIR filed against him for alleged objectionable remarks against BJP leaders was to criminalise political speech and dissent even as he assured cooperation with police in the ongoing probe.

Patil, facing charges of promoting enmity between various groups, has filed a petition in the HC challenging the FIR in Mumbai and also the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against him due to which he was unable travel to the UK.

Notably, a lookout circular prevents a person under investigation from leaving the country.

The city police lodged the FIR against the UK citizen of Indian origin in December last for his alleged critical remarks on social media against BJP leaders.

Arguments in Court

Patil's counsel Rajiv Shakdher on Monday told a single bench of Justice Ashwin Bhobe that the case against his client was politically motivated and part of an effort by the police to criminalise political speech and dissent.

The doctor, while seeking permission to return to the UK, said he would file an affidavit assuring his continued cooperation with the police in the probe.

Shakdher told the court Patil has already appeared for questioning on several occasions before the police and he has not been summoned since January.

No custodial interrogation of the physician was required, he insisted.

Advocate General Milind Sathe opposed the plea, arguing the content posted by Patil creates hatred and promotes enmity among two groups.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 15.

Disclaimer: News content is sourced from the stated source. Headlines, summaries, section headers, and images are automatically generated or selected using AI/algorithms and may not always be fully accurate. Readers are advised to refer to the full article for complete context.