Updated: January 12, 2026

Mumbai – Dr. Sangram Patil, a London-based British national of Indian origin and vocal critic of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was detained for over 15 hours at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai on Saturday, sparking widespread reactions from opposition parties and raising concerns about freedom of expression in India. The detention, which involved his wife being held alongside him, was carried out on the basis of a Look Out Circular (LOC) linked to an FIR filed against him by a leader of the Maharashtra Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

According to police and media reports, the FIR against Patil was lodged on December 18, 2025, at the N M Joshi Marg Police Station, following a complaint by Nikhil Bhamre, the social media coordinator of the Maharashtra BJP unit. The complaint alleged that Patil had posted content on social media that defamed PM Modi and contained objectionable statements about other BJP leaders, as well as inappropriate content regarding a woman. In addition to the FIR, authorities issued a Look Out Circular that was used to detain Patil upon his arrival in Mumbai from London.

The police explained that Patil’s detention was carried out in accordance with the LOC, which allows authorities to prevent an individual from leaving or entering the country based on an active investigation. “They were detained by immigration authorities on the basis of a Look Out Circular issued against him in connection with the FIR,” a police officer told the media. After questioning, Patil was released with a notice under section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates that when an arrest is not warranted, authorities must issue a notice for the accused to appear before police.

The FIR itself, filed by Bhamre, alleged that Patil had authored social media posts and articles containing defamatory material against BJP leaders, including PM Modi. According to the complaint, these posts spread false information and were capable of inciting enmity or hatred between communities. Bhamre reportedly came across one of Patil’s posts while browsing the internet and, after consulting senior BJP officials, submitted the complaint to police, prompting the legal proceedings. The FIR was registered under section 353(2) of the BNSS, which relates to statements containing false information likely to provoke enmity among communities.

Upon his release, Dr. Patil addressed the media and clarified his position. He said that it was no secret that he is active on social media and has been critical of the BJP-led government. “They have clubbed some posts and have named me as an accused. I will discuss this with my legal team and decide a further course of action,” Patil said, emphasizing his intent to challenge the FIR through legal channels. Patil’s comments highlighted concerns about the potential misuse of legal mechanisms to target political dissenters and the impact on freedom of speech.

The detention has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders across Maharashtra. Senior Congress leader Balasaheb Thorat condemned the detention, asserting that “arresting someone who asks questions is cowardice on the part of the BJP government.” Jitendra Awhad, senior leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Shiv Sena faction, echoed similar sentiments, stating, “It is not a crime to take a stand against the government. But how can one expect that from a government drunk on power?”

Rohit Pawar, another prominent NCP leader, voiced his outrage on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), calling the detention “an insult to the state’s honour.” He further appealed to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to issue instructions to the police for Patil’s immediate release. In his statement, Pawar condemned the action as a misuse of power intended to “throttle democracy simply because someone took a stand against it” and warned that opposition leaders were prepared to mobilize in support of Patil if necessary.

The incident has ignited a broader debate about the intersection of social media, political criticism, and legal oversight in India. Critics argue that mechanisms such as LOCs and FIRs, when used against dissenting voices, can be perceived as tools of intimidation. Supporters of the government, however, maintain that legal action was necessary to address content that allegedly defamed public figures and contained objectionable material. This tension highlights the delicate balance between national security, reputational protection of public leaders, and the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Legal experts note that the issuance of a Look Out Circular is a standard procedure intended to prevent individuals from leaving the country while under investigation. However, they emphasize that such tools can become controversial when applied in politically sensitive cases. Dr. Patil’s case is notable because he is a foreign national, which raises additional diplomatic and procedural considerations, including the need to follow international norms for due process and the rights of foreign nationals in India.

Observers also point out that Patil’s detention, which lasted over 15 hours, included his wife being held alongside him, adding to concerns about the proportionality and necessity of the measures taken. While he was eventually released with a notice, the lengthy detention has been perceived by critics as a form of political signaling, potentially intended to dissuade outspoken criticism of the government on social media platforms.

Dr. Patil’s case is not the first instance where social media criticism has led to legal action in India. In recent years, several activists, journalists, and commentators have faced FIRs or other legal notices for posts critical of political leaders or parties. Each such case often reignites debates about the appropriate scope of online speech, the responsibility of social media users, and the accountability of authorities in balancing law enforcement with civil liberties.

In response to his detention, Patil has indicated that he will consult with his legal team to determine next steps. Legal analysts suggest that he may challenge the FIR and the basis for the LOC in court, potentially raising constitutional arguments regarding freedom of speech and the limits of governmental authority. The proceedings could set an important precedent for how India manages complaints and legal cases involving foreign nationals critical of the government.

In conclusion, the detention of Dr. Sangram Patil at Mumbai airport underscores the complex interplay between politics, social media, and law enforcement in contemporary India. While authorities contend that the action was a procedural response to an FIR alleging defamation and objectionable content, opposition parties and civil society leaders have framed it as an infringement on democratic rights and freedom of expression. As Patil navigates the legal process with the support of his counsel, the incident has become a focal point in ongoing discussions about the limits of political criticism, government accountability, and the protection of individual rights in the digital age.

The controversy surrounding Patil’s detention also raises broader questions about how democracies handle dissent from citizens and non-residents alike, particularly in a politically charged environment. With opposition leaders actively mobilizing support and public debates intensifying on social media platforms, the case is likely to remain in the spotlight, influencing both political discourse and legal interpretations of free speech in India.

---