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.

The Wrong Target

By threatening India with secondary sanctions over its ties with Russia, the West exposes its double standards and risks alienating one of its few true democratic partners in Asia.

Mark Rutte
Mark Rutte

It is a curious spectacle when the world’s strongest democracy lectures the world’s largest on strategic morality. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent warning that India (along with Brazil and China) could be hit “very hard” by secondary sanctions if it continues doing business with Russia reeks of a familiar condescension. Coming hot on the heels of President Donald Trump’s announcement of a new 50-day deadline for a Ukraine peace deal, with tariffs of up to 100 percent hanging over Russian trade partners, the message was toe the Western line.

 

For India, the implied threat is galling. For decades, it has walked a careful tightrope between East and West, rooted not in opportunism but in a principled pursuit of strategic autonomy. That Delhi imports Russian oil is no secret; it does so not to bankroll Vladimir Putin’s war machine, but to protect its own economic interests in an inflation-prone, energy-starved developing economy. Moreover, unlike China, India is no revisionist power. It has neither enabled Russia militarily nor undermined the Western sanctions regime. If anything, India has emerged as a rare voice that can speak with both Moscow and Washington and be heard across the world.

 

The irony, of course, is that America and NATO now choose to single out India while continuing to mollycoddle Pakistan - China’s closest ally in the region, a nuclear-armed state with a military-dominated polity, and a long-standing haven for terror groups. For years, successive U.S. administrations have poured billions into Pakistan’s military establishment in the name of counterterrorism only to watch its generals shelter the Taliban, enable cross-border terrorism in India (as in the recent Pahalgam massacre) and deepen defence cooperation with Beijing.

 

In contrast, India has stood by the West on every fundamental value – be it democracy, rule of law, open markets and yet faces threats of punitive tariffs. If the West wants to preserve the global order it claims to defend, it would do well to treat India as a partner, not a subordinate.

 

The notion that New Delhi can simply be strong-armed into severing ties with Moscow reveals a deeper, post-Cold War Western anxiety.

 

India has legitimate defence needs that cannot yet be met by Western suppliers alone. Around 60–70 percent of India’s military hardware is still of Russian origin - an inheritance from Cold War alignments born out of necessity, when the West chose Pakistan over India. And despite all the talk of de-risking from authoritarian supply chains, India has yet to see the kind of strategic technology transfers or manufacturing partnerships from the West that would enable a full pivot.

 

This is not to suggest that India is indifferent to the Ukraine war. It has called repeatedly for diplomacy, refrained from recognising Russia’s annexations, and provided humanitarian assistance to Kyiv. But Delhi’s neutrality is not an endorsement of Russian aggression.


Trump’s new 50-day ultimatum, accompanied by Rutte’s cheerleading, will likely fall flat in South Block. Not because India supports Russia, but because it sees through the US’ hypocrisy.


NATO nations continue to import Russian gas by proxy; European firms quietly circumvent sanctions through third countries. The same West that demands India sacrifice its economic security did not flinch when arming autocracies in West Asia or coddling China until it was too late.

 

If the Western alliance believes that coercive diplomacy will bring India into line, it is badly mistaken. Far from isolating Russia, it risks pushing India away into a more assertive non-alignment, one that resists bullying from either pole. And that would be a strategic loss for the West.

 

For the world’s liberal democracies to prevail against authoritarianism, unity must be forged through trust, not tariffs. The sooner NATO realises this, the better. Because if it alienates India today, it will find itself dangerously alone tomorrow.

Comments


bottom of page