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.

Assertive Statecraft

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Unlike earlier Indian External Affairs Ministers who, by and large, favoured a more measured tone when dealing with restive neighbours and India’s adversaries, S. Jaishankar’s approach has been unapologetically firm. He sets himself apart from his predecessors with a style of diplomacy that is both assertive and unflinching. Whether dealing with Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism or China’s military provocations, Jaishankar’s diplomacy merges strategic patience with sharp critique - a style that contrasts sharply with more reconciliatory stances of yore.


Consider his recent remarks at the 23rd Meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government in Islamabad. Jaishankar did not mince words, emphasizing that terrorism and extremism, often sponsored by Pakistan, hinder the region’s trade and connectivity. While former ministers like S.M. Krishna or Pranab Mukherjee might have opted for more diplomatic phrasing, Jaishankar had no inhibitions in openly calling out the “three evils” - terrorism, extremism and separatism. His blunt message was that trade and cooperation cannot flourish amidst violence, and India will not compromise on this principle.


This hard-line stance shows that India’s foreign policy has come of age. Previous ministers often focused on backchannel diplomacy and confidence-building measures, hoping to bring Pakistan to the table. Jaishankar, however, has raised the stakes, making it clear that the onus lies entirely on Islamabad. He has effectively drawn a red line, signalling that India’s patience for half-hearted promises of peace has worn thin.


His handling of China has been no less firm. Since the 2020 Galwan clashes, relations between India and China have been frosty, with border standoffs straining ties. While earlier ministers like Jaswant Singh sought to expand diplomatic channels and avoid direct confrontation, Jaishankar’s bolder approach has been to reduce India’s cooperation with Beijing to a bare minimum. At the SCO Summit, he underscored the importance of territorial integrity and mutual respect - an implicit but clear jab at Chinese expansionist ambitions. His message was that until Beijing respects India’s sovereignty, meaningful cooperation is off the table.


His remarks on Canada, delivered in response to Canada’s mishandling of separatist elements celebrating the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi last year, demonstrate his willingness to confront far-flung Western powers. Jaishankar’s critique of Canadian PM Trudeau’s “vote bank politics” and the platform Canada has given to extremist Khalistan elements was a striking departure from the caution exercised by earlier ministers when dealing with Western democracies. Where former ministers might have chosen to tread lightly to preserve strategic partnerships, Jaishankar took a confrontational stand, calling out Canada’s complicity in nurturing forces that harm India’s unity. This approach underscores that India will no longer passively accept the actions of others, whether they be rooted in vote bank politics or geostrategic manoeuvring.

Comments


bottom of page