Netizens concerned over NRI Sangram Patil's detention in Mumbai over anti-BJP remarks: ‘Bravo freedom of speech’

Sangram Patil has said that his detention amounted to a restriction on his freedom of movement and expression, particularly as a British citizen. (Image credit: YouTube)

Days after UK‑based doctor and YouTuber Sangram Patil was held back at the Mumbai airport for questioning over his anti-BJP comments, social media users have been sharing their concerns about his detention. Even as the Bombay High Court stepped in on Thursday and sought the Maharashtra government’s response to his plea challenging the First Information Report (FIR) and Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him, online reactions have framed the case as a test of free speech, with users warning that dissent is being criminalised.

Patil has been booked under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the publication or circulation of statements or false information that can promote enmity or hatred through electronic means and carries a maximum punishment of three years.

Social media backlash: ‘Turning dissent into crime’

Activist Vijay Kumbhar described the action against Patil as “hasty, excessive and a blatant violation of basic legal principles,” arguing that the FIR was based solely on a Facebook post with no allegation of violence, injury to government officials or damage to public property. Taking to X, questioned whether arrests or detention over online opinion were legally sustainable and warned that the case set a “dangerous precedent” for freedom of expression.

Other users echoed the concern. One X user commented, "Bravo, freedom of speech". Another called the case a “chilling illustration” of how democratic dissent is being rebranded as a criminal act, adding that it sent an “authoritarian message” to Indians abroad that foreign citizenship offers no protection if they criticise the ruling party. An Instagram user sarcastically described the episode as “peak national security,” while others alleged that authorities were “cooking a case” to silence Patil, comparing it to past instances where activists faced prolonged legal action without trial.

Several posts framed the issue as one where opposing a political party was being equated with being “anti‑national,” questioning the shrinking space for political criticism in a democracy.

Detention at airport after defamation case filed by BJP

Patil’s legal challenge follows his detention at Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport earlier this month. He was stopped on January 10 upon his arrival from London and questioned by the city crime branch for hours in connection with a defamation case filed by BJP media cell functionary Nikhil Bhamre. Police later maintained that he was not formally arrested but served a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows for a notice of appearance instead of arrest in cases involving shorter jail terms.

But, the matter escalated when Patil was again stopped on January 19 while attempting to fly back to the UK. Immigration authorities cited an active LOC against him, preventing his departure despite his claim that the process to withdraw the LOC had begun. Patil said this amounted to a restriction on his freedom of movement and expression, particularly as a British citizen.

Police, for their part, told the Times of India that the LOC had been amended from “detention” to “prevent and inform” as the investigation was ongoing, and alleged that Patil had not yet handed over certain electronic devices required for the probe.

Background to the FIR

The FIR, registered at Mumbai’s NM Joshi Marg police station in December, stemmed from a complaint by BJP social media coordinator Nikhil Bhamre. He alleged that Patil had shared or amplified objectionable and defamatory content about the BJP and its leaders on Facebook, which could incite hostility or animosity. Patil, a British national of Indian origin from Maharashtra, is known for his political commentary and has built a large following on YouTube during and after the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Some of his posts, however, have also been criticised on social media after his detention. "Lock him up, don't release him," commented one X user, while another called Patil "a staunch supporter of terrorists" after he released a video on Umar Khalid, an activist and research scholar at JNU, who was arrested in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

Patil has acknowledged making critical posts but maintains that they fall within the bounds of democratic dissent and do not amount to hate speech or incitement, a position now under judicial scrutiny.