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.

Why Are LGBTQ Rights at Risk Under Trump’s Leadership?

The LGBTQ community, traditionally aligned with the Democratic Party, has voiced significant concerns over Donald Trump’s political resurgence, fearing his return could erode hard-won rights. These fears stem from political setbacks and judicial appointments during his previous term, often viewed as hostile to LGBTQ individuals.


The LGBTQ community’s ties to the Democratic Party strengthened in 1993 when President Bill Clinton sought to allow gay and lesbian individuals to serve openly in the military. The effort resulted in the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, which prohibited LGBTQ service members from revealing their identities. While intended as a compromise, it faced criticism from both sides and led to the discharge of over 13,000 service members before its repeal in 2011.


As societal understanding of gender and sexuality evolved, so did the terminology. The term "LGB," coined in 1990 to represent lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, expanded to "LGBTQ," encompassing transgender and queer identities. Today, approximately 8% to 10% of the U.S. population identifies as part of this diverse community. In 2015, the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision.


Trump’s presidency sparked anxiety among LGBTQ advocates, who accused his administration of rolling back critical protections. His alignment with conservative and religious groups, many of whom opposed LGBTQ rights, further fuelled this perception.


In 2017, Trump, in this previous term, announced a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, reversing an Obama-era policy that allowed them to serve openly. This action, targeting a group representing just 0.6% of the population, was widely condemned as discriminatory and unnecessary. Advocates saw it as part of a broader agenda to marginalise LGBTQ individuals, particularly transgender people.


Trump’s judicial appointments heightened these concerns. Hundreds of conservative judges, many with anti-LGBTQ records, were appointed to federal courts. The most significant shift occurred on the Supreme Court, where Trump secured a 6-3 conservative supermajority by appointing Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The Supreme Court, whose justices hold lifetime appointments, has the power to shape the legal and political landscape for generations through its decisions. While some rulings, like Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, supported LGBTQ rights, the overall direction of the court raised fears about the future of same-sex marriage and other protections.


These concerns escalated after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending federal abortion protections. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, explicitly called for revisiting rulings on same-sex relationships, marriage, and access to contraception. This sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ community, signalling a potential challenge to the foundational decisions underpinning their rights.


Adding to the community’s unease is “Project 2025,” a conservative roadmap for a future Republican presidency. Critics argue that the plan could curtail LGBTQ rights by rolling back anti-discrimination protections and limiting access to education and healthcare. Although Trump has distanced himself from the initiative, many fear he will embrace its principles once he gets into power.


Some subgroups of the LTBTQ community within the broader electorate supported his presidency. Segments of the South Asian American community, for example, rallied behind Trump for his perceived strong stance against Islamic extremism. However, this support often conflicted with LGBTQ advocacy, which viewed his policies as hostile to equality and inclusion.


Advocates of the LGBTQ community are focused on safeguarding gains like marriage equality, workplace protections, and anti-discrimination laws, which are now at risk due to judicial shifts and conservative political strategies. Simultaneously, grassroots organisations, legal advocacy groups, and individual activists are mobilising for further progress, including advocating for the Equality Act to expand federal anti-discrimination protections.


Amid these challenges, advocates focus on safeguarding gains like marriage equality and anti-discrimination laws while pushing for progress through initiatives like the Equality Act. The community’s vigilance remains crucial as the fight for justice continues under shifting political tides.


(The author is a resident of Washington DC, US. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page