'Post Doesn't Mention PM Modi, Police Attributing Meanings To It & Criminalising Political Speech': Sangram Patil Tells Bombay High Court

In a development in the criminal proceedings initiated against YouTuber Dr Sangram Patil for allegedly posting 'obscene and defamatory' posts against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the UK-based doctor has 'categorically' told the Bombay High Court that he has not made any post against the PM and that the Mumbai Police is only trying to 'criminalise' political speech.

For context, Patil has been made an accused in a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at the behest of BJP Media Cell head - Nikhil Bhamre on December 18, 2025. The FIR is based on some allegedly 'objectionable and defamatory' posts Patil made on his Facebook page against PM Modi and some BJP leaders, which Bhamre claimed were 'obscene posts.' Patil learnt about the said FIR only after he was prevented from flying back his home in UK, by the immigration authorities citing a pending Look Out Circular (LOC) against him.

Patil has petitioned single-judge Justice Ashwin Bhobe seeking to quash the FIR in question and also the issuance of LOC against him and permission to fly back to his home country.

Last week, the Mumbai Police by way of an affidavit had contended that the initiation of criminal proceedings against Patil were not 'arbitrary' but it was only to 'safeguard' India's image and also the dignity of PM  Modi at the international forum and also to protect national integrity.

Responding to the affidavit-in-reply of Mumbai Police, Patil has now filed a rejoinder through his advocate Bhushan Yadav. 

In his rejoinder, Patil has said, "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."

Patil has accused the Mumbai Police of resorting to "a clear attempt to criminalise political speech, justify an illegal LOC post-facto, chill dissent and abuse the criminal process."

"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," Patil has stated particularly

In reference to the allegations made by the police that Patil has engaged in - promotion of enmity and public mischief, circulation of false, scandalous, lascivious and inflammatory information, misuse of intermediary platforms, threats to sovereignty, integrity and public order, the UK national has contended that the allegations are 'baseless and legally unsustainable.'

"The political criticism or rhetorical expression, even if harsh or unpalatable, does not amount to promotion of enmity between groups. It is a settled position of law that for an offence relating to promotion of enmity between groups, the sine qua non is the existence of two or more identifiable groups. The police are attempting to innovate a new group of followers and non-followers of a political leader, which is surprising and beyond the permissible interpretation of the law. Mere political criticism or rhetorical expression, even if harsh or unpalatable, does not satisfy the statutory ingredients. The alleged FIR and Reply by the Respondent do not identify even a single such group, let alone two competing groups," Patil has contended. 

Further, Patil has admitted the fact that the 'post' in question was actually posted by him and that he has submitted both documentary and oral evidence to the said effect and thus has questioned as to why the police is still insisting him to hand over his devices to the probe team. 

Notably, the police has contended that it is necessary to investigate whether Patil, while being a foreign national, had any local assistance, collaborators, or handlers in India who facilitated or amplified the dissemination of such content on social media, particularly content that directly attacks the character and dignity of the Prime Minister of India.

Responding to this very contention, Patil has said, "I emphatically deny that I have committed any offence or that I am part of any larger conspiracy or that I fund or that I am being funded by any organisation or individual for this purpose. In any event, these are not the issues in the FIR and are therefore irrelevant. The police do not have jurisdiction to expand the investigation beyond the post and conduct fishing and roving inquiries. The intent of the police to catch hold of my other devices and implicate me in similar false cases is evident from the fact that they are asking irrelevant information and instruments."

The allegation of non-cooperation made by the Police against Patil, it is argued is being made only to cover up the 'targeted investigation' which is not permissible by law.

"I further deny that I continued to post derogatory substance after coming to know of the FIR. In fact, the post referred to in the Affidavit in Reply is merely a news item with an innocuous comment by me, which was posted before I had any knowledge of the FIR. Notwithstanding above fact, I submit that there is no offence committed by posting the content under examination or any other content on my social media. It may be noted that nobody has filed a case of defamation for the socalled derogatory content in any of the post-suo-moto cases considered by the police," Patil has pointed out. 

Further Patil has 'categorically' denied that the post shared by him is vulgar, obscene, lascivious or derogatory as alleged by the city police.

"I further submit that the impugned FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts verbatim, does not specify which sentence constitutes an offence, and does not disclose how the statutory ingredients of Section 353(2) BNS are attracted. It is denied that there is any offensive remark about any woman in the post. I also submit that I have no connection with Shahar Vikas Aghadi whatsoever," Patil has stated. 

A criminal prosecution cannot rest on subjective adjectives such as 'vulgar or derogatory' without disclosing the actual offending content, he contends.

"The assertion that the FIR discloses a serious offence affecting public order is incorrect, exaggerated and unsupported by any material. The FIR does not allege any incitement to violence, any call for public disorder and any imminent threat to public tranquillity. The allegations are purely subjective political disagreement, which is constitutionally protected. In any event, even if the words used by me are found to be unpalatable, they do not constitute any offence under the law," Patil has argued. 

The matter is likely to be heard on February 17.