top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court...

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court that the state would file its reply within a week in the matter.   Indian-origin Dr. Patil, hailing from Jalgaon, is facing a criminal case here for posting allegedly objectionable content involving Bharatiya Janata Party leaders on social media.   After his posts on a FB page, ‘Shehar Vikas Aghadi’, a Mumbai BJP media cell functionary lodged a criminal complaint following which the NM Joshi Marg Police registered a FIR (Dec. 18, 2025) and subsequently issued a LoC against Dr. Patil, restricting his travels.   The complainant Nikhil Bhamre filed the complaint in December 2025, contending that Dr. Patil on Dec. 14 posted offensive content intended to spread ‘disinformation and falsehoods’ about the BJP and its leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.   Among others, the police invoked BNSS Sec. 353(2) that attracts a 3-year jail term for publishing or circulating statements or rumours through electronic media with intent to promote enmity or hatred between communities.   Based on the FIR, Dr. Patil was detained and questioned for 15 hours when he arrived with his wife from London at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (Jan. 10), and again prevented from returning to Manchester, UK on Jan. 19 in view of the ongoing investigations.   On Wednesday (Jan. 21) Dr. Patil recorded his statement before the Mumbai Police and now he has moved the high court. Besides seeking quashing of the FIR and the LoC, he has sought removal of his name from the database imposing restrictions on his international travels.   Through his Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, the medico has sought interim relief in the form of a stay on further probe by Crime Branch-III and coercive action, restraint on filing any charge-sheet during the pendency of the petition and permission to go back to the UK.   Pasbola submitted to the court that Dr. Patil had voluntarily travelled from the UK to India and was unaware of the FIR when he landed here. Sathe argued that Patil had appeared in connection with other posts and was not fully cooperating with the investigators.

An Urgent Need for Vigilance Against Authoritarianism

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Vigilance Against Authoritarianism

How Democracies Die, written by Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, winner of the Goldsmith Book Prize, received international acclaim. It also has the honour of being called one of the best books written by notable publications, like The Washington Post, Time magazine, and Foreign Affairs.


The book reflects on the gradual erosion of democratic principles and values in several countries across the globe in the twenty-first century. This includes the United States, especially after Donald Trump’s ascent to the U.S. presidency in 2016. Now that he is attempting to regain that seat, this book becomes even more relevant. It cites various examples of authoritarianism both globally and within the United States, urging us to 'protect the guardrails of democracy' from being undermined. By highlighting the tendencies of world leaders, political parties, and officials, such as judges, to usurp power and curtail democratic practices, it emphasises the urgent need for vigilance.


This book, apart from being relevant and prescient, cites eminent political scientist Juan Linz, who, in his seminal book called The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, proposed a litmus test for identifying anti-democratic politicians. According to him, an authoritarian politician is one who: 1) rejects in words or actions the democratic rules of the game; 2) denies the legitimacy of opponents; 3) tolerates or encourages violence; or 4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.


The authors are of the firm opinion that the responsibility for preventing authoritarians from assuming power lies with political parties and party leaders—both of whom are democracy’s gatekeepers. Successful gatekeeping involves several key actions. One such method is “distancing,” a term coined by political scientist Nancy Bermeo. This strategy allows pro-democratic parties to prevent would-be authoritarians from appearing on party ballots during elections by refraining from nominating candidates who, despite their ability to attract votes, hold extremist views.


Secondly, parties can root out extremists at the grassroots of their own ranks. Third, pro-democratic parties should avoid all alliances or coalitions with anti-democratic parties and candidates, even if the latter could win them votes. Fourth, pro-democratic parties should act to systematically isolate rather than legitimise extremists. In Venezuela, ex-President Rafael Caldera, one of the founders of Venezuelan democracy, made the mistake of supporting and dropping treason charges against Hugo Chavez, an authoritarian, to boost public support for himself. In doing so, he legitimised an authoritarian and later opened the country’s presidential post to him.


Finally, when extremist parties emerge as serious electoral contenders, mainstream parties must forge a united front to defeat them. In Linz’s words, they must be willing to “join with opponents ideologically distant but committed to the survival of the democratic order.” Even though this might be almost inconceivable in normal times, in extraordinary times courageous party leadership implies putting democracy and country before party and explaining to voters what is at stake.


This book was written in 2019 when President Trump was in power. To quote the authors: “Opposition to the Trump administration’s authoritarian behaviour should be muscular, but it should seek to preserve rather than violate democratic rules and norms. Where possible, the opposition should centre on Congress, the courts, and, of course, elections. If Trump is defeated via democratic institutions, it will strengthen these institutions.”


“Protest should be viewed in a similar way. Public protest is a basic right and an important activity in any democracy, but its aim should be the defense of rights and institutions rather than their disruption.”


The authors end by stating, “History shows us that it is possible to reconcile democracy with diversity…Previous generations of Europeans and Americans made extraordinary sacrifices to defend our democratic institutions against powerful external threats. Our generation, which grew up taking democracy for granted, now faces a different task: We must prevent it from dying from within.”


This book serves as a beacon not only to American and European democracies but also to democratic systems the world over. An exciting and stupendous read packed with real-life examples and information, it will make the reader reflect and take notice.


(The author is an independent researcher. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page