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.

When Meritocracy Starts to Feel Like Favoritism

At The Workshop, nobody said it aloud. But everyone felt it. It wasn’t a policy. It wasn’t a memo. It was a pattern. The founder, Rohit, had a rhythm … a gravitational pull toward certain people. The ones he brainstormed with, called into client meetings, turned to for “quick feedback”.


It didn’t look like favoritism. But it didn’t feel like meritocracy either. And that’s where the distortion begins … not in what leaders intend, but in what teams observe. Two months after the grand town hall, the strategy wasn't what people were trying to decode anymore.


They were decoding proximity:

Who does Rohit trust? Who gets access without asking? Whose mistakes are overlooked? Whose ideas make it to execution?


There were no formal rules for this. But everyone was learning them. And Rohit? He had no idea. Because in his mind, he was just moving with speed while leaning on the people who “got it” fastest. But what the team saw was something else: A quiet hierarchy of influence. One built not on titles, but on closeness.


That moment

It happened during a Friday sprint retro. Aman proposed a workflow change. Bold, unconventional … the kind of idea Rohit usually encouraged. But instead of responding, Rohit turned to Meera: “Let’s hold that thought. Meera, what do you think?”


Meera had worked with him the longest. Her judgment was sharp. Trusted. But to everyone else in the room: Aman felt dismissed. The interns updated their playbook: “Run bold ideas through Meera.” The ops lead made a mental note: “Pitch safely, not directly.”


Rohit hadn’t intended to promote a gatekeeper. But in that moment, the team had just created one.


Favoritism before leaders

Because leaders operate from intention. Teams live with impact. Rohit didn’t like Meera more. He simply trusted her process. She could take his half-sentence and turn it into action without much translation. He wasn’t rewarding loyalty. He was rewarding ease. But that distinction doesn’t matter when the team sees the same voices dominate every meeting. Familiarity starts looking like favoritism. And culture quietly reshapes around that perception.


Echo chamber

Most founders don’t wake up wanting to build echo chambers. They just gravitate … toward the people who mirror their speed, their style, their language.


Here’s what happens:

The founder starts ideating more with “trusted” voices. Those voices gain unofficial influence. Everyone else speaks less – not from fear, but from futility. Decision quality drops. Alignment fractures. Initiative dies.


Before you know it, you’re not building a meritocracy. You’re building a familiarity loop.


And in fast-growth companies, loops are sticky.


Real case

In a national sales team we worked with, the VP insisted decisions were data-driven. Until we ran a blind assessment. A top performer was barely visible. A mid-level player got promoted … not because of results, but because she was always in the VP’s orbit. A high-potential new joiner was overlooked because he didn’t “sound confident”.


When we showed the gap, the VP was stunned. What he thought was merit… was actually compatibility.


In a factory setup, a supervisor promoted the wrong person for three cycles in a row.


Not due to bias. Due to comfort. He chose: The one who never challenged him. The one who echoed his thinking. The one who felt “safe.”


Meanwhile, the real performers watched quietly. One line worker summed it up best: “Performance is for the reports. Promotions are for the familiar.”


Team effect

The damage isn’t instant. It’s cumulative. First, people stop pitching bold ideas.


Then, they stop asking questions. Eventually, they stop trying to compete at all.


Because the game feels rigged… even if it’s not.


And that’s the real cost of the Power Paradox. The leader thinks they’re being objective. The team experiences a hierarchy of trust.


Real paradox

Founders say, “We’re a meritocracy.” The team replies, “Then why does the same inner circle always win?” They’re not wrong. Neither is the founder. Because power isn’t about what you say.


It’s about how often you say it to the same people.


And when that circle goes unexamined, it quietly shapes a culture where: Familiarity outruns contribution, access outranks talent, and initiative dies before it begins.


Meritocracy is not just what you believe. It’s what your team can see.


(Rahul Kulkarni is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. He writes about the human mechanics of growth where systems evolve, and emotions learn to keep up. Views personal. Write to rahul@ppsconsulting.biz)

Comments


bottom of page