UK-based doctor stranded in Mumbai over social media post on PM Modi
Doctor
Mumbai: An Indian-origin British doctor, currently serving as a consultant with the National Health Service (NHS), has been stranded in Mumbai for nearly three months after the Mumbai Police issued a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him over a social media post targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. As a result of travel restrictions, the UK-based physician has been unable to return home and resume his professional responsibilities.
Dr. Sangram Patil, who also runs a YouTube channel with over 4.73 lakh subscribers, has approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief. The court is currently examining the validity of the FIR lodged against him as well as the legality of the LOC that has prevented him from travelling back to the UK.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported on the matter which arose from a Facebook post made by Dr Patil on December 14, 2025. A complaint was filed the same day by Nikhil Bhamre, social media head of the Maharashtra unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). An FIR was subsequently registered on December 18 at N.M. Joshi Marg police station in Lower Parel. As per the FIR, the doctor had uploaded "objectionable and defamatory content on Facebook that was misleading and capable of disturbing public harmony."
Dr Patil, who holds British citizenship, had travelled to India on a tourist visa for a brief personal visit, intending to return to the UK. However, upon his arrival at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport on January 10, 2026, he was detained and questioned by the Mumbai Police Crime Branch. After that, his departure from India was blocked due to the LOC.
The Times of India reported that, in opposition to the doctor’s petition, Mumbai Police submitted an affidavit on February 6, sworn by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Detection) Raj Tilak Roushan. The affidavit alleged that the doctor had circulated posts capable of promoting disharmony and enmity between communities and had uploaded “indecent, derisive, degrading and salacious content” about the Prime Minister. It further claimed that he attempted to bypass Indian law enforcement by using foreign IP addresses and digital intermediaries and continued to post "inflammatory and scandalous content" even after the investigation commenced in December 2025.
“I say that petitioner Dr Sangram Patil, a foreign national holding United Kingdom citizenship, has posted content on Facebook, making serious and scandalous allegations of a lascivious nature against the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,” the police affidavit stated, as reported by TOI.
Police also contended that the alleged actions could be "part of a larger, organised effort aimed at maligning constitutional authority and disturbing public order." They further accused the doctor of non-cooperation, stating that he did not provide complete access to his Facebook account and cited technical issues related to a one-time password linked to a device in the UK.
In a rejoinder filed on February 9, the doctor refuted these allegations. He maintained that he had cooperated with investigators, appeared before the Crime Branch when summoned, and that "no custodial interrogation has been sought so far."
He also stated that the “said post mentions the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India by name or makes any direct or indirect reference identifiable exclusively to the Prime Minister”. According to him, the police were assigning meaning based on “subjective political interpretation”.
He further alleged that authorities were attempting to “criminalise political speech, justify an illegal LOC post facto, chill dissent, and abuse the criminal process.”
Addressing the demand for seizure of his electronic devices, Dr. Patil argued that he had already acknowledged authorship of the post and had furnished documentary as well as oral evidence. He also denied claims that he continued to publish derogatory content after the FIR was registered.
“The impugned FIR does not reproduce the alleged posts verbatim, does not specify which sentence constitutes an offence, and does not disclose how the statutory ingredients of Section 353(2) BNS are attracted,” he said, according to the TOI report.
The matter is listed for further hearing on February 17. The high court is expected to determine whether the FIR and travel restrictions imposed on the UK-based consultant can legally stand, or whether he will be permitted to return to his professional commitments in Britain.
