Three separate, yet ideologically connected incidents that recently occurred in Mumbai have raised grave concerns regarding freedom of expression, cultural autonomy, and constitutional values.
Dr Sangram Patil is a London-based British citizen, medical doctor and YouTuber, originally from Jalgaon district in Maharashtra. He is known for his critical views expressed on social media, particularly against the BJP and its leadership. On 10 January 2026, Dr Patil and his wife were stopped at Mumbai International Airport and detained for questioning by the police upon their arrival. This action followed a complaint filed by a BJP media cell functionary, Nikhil Bhamre, regarding Dr Patil’s social media posts, which allegedly criticised and made allegations against the Prime Minister and senior BJP leaders.
Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered against Dr Patil alleging that his posts spread misinformation and attempted to create social disharmony, invoking provisions under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Despite the absence of any violent, criminal, or socially disruptive act, both Dr Patil and his wife were detained and questioned by the police. Subsequently, on 19 January 2026, when the couple attempted to return to London, they were stopped again at the airport and prevented from leaving the country.
The reason cited was the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC) against Dr Patil, which barred him from travelling abroad. Dr Patil has stated that he had already cooperated with the police investigation and had formally requested the cancellation of the LOC; however, the circular remained active, resulting in the denial of his right to travel.
The Second incident pertains to the Kalaghoda Arts Festival, where a scheduled discussion on the book ‘The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir’—which critically examines the systematic dismantling of the Indian Constitution—authored by renowned Marxist thinker Dr. Anand Teltumbde, was abruptly cancelled. The organizers cited a so-called “oral directive” from the Mumbai Police as the reason for the cancellation. A book discussion featuring activist and author Anand Teltumbde at the prestigious Kala Ghoda Arts Festival was cancelled following an alleged oral directive from the Mumbai Police, participants said on 4th January.
The session, titled “Incarcerated: Tales from Behind Bars,” was scheduled to be held on Thursday (February 5) between 8 pm and 9 pm. The discussion was to explore how imprisonment becomes both a site of punishment and deep personal reflection. Along with Teltumbde, the panel included journalist and author Neeta Kolhatkar, whose book The Feared: Conversations with Eleven Political Prisoners documents the lives of inmates behind bars, and was to be moderated by Scroll editor Naresh Fernandes. According to Mumbai Police sources, complete details of the Kala Ghoda Festival programme had been shared with the department. However, organisers were later informed verbally to cancel the event. The organisers told participants that the police not only asked them to withdraw the book discussion session but also instructed them to remove all social media posts related to the event. Participants were similarly asked to delete promotional posts. Shockingly, the organizers failed to extend even the basic courtesy of prior intimation to the invited speakers, scholars, and attendees before cancelling the discussion.
Cancelling an academic and literary discussion under the pretext of “security concerns” is not only absurd but also deeply shameful for a democracy. The police, who are constitutionally entrusted with safeguarding democratic rights, claiming incapacity to protect a handful of literature lovers is an argument that would not convince even a school-going child. This action clearly reflects compliance with political pressure exerted by the ruling establishment and stands as a blatant example of suppression of free expression.
The Third disturbing incident involves the last-minute cancellation of a literary event at Mumbai University, organized in collaboration with the University’s Urdu Department, where veteran actor and cultural icon Naseeruddin Shah had been invited to participate. Following the cancellation, contradictory statements were issued by the organizers, university authorities, and department officials. At times “security concerns” were cited, while at others it was falsely claimed that the artist had withdrawn voluntarily. Mr. Naseeruddin Shah himself categorically denied these claims, stating that he was informed at the very last moment without being given any clear or valid reason for the cancellation. This incident is not merely about one cancelled programme—it represents the growing intolerance toward Urdu language, minority cultural expression, and the erosion of university autonomy.
Veteran actor and public intellectual Nasiruddin Shah recently expressed deep anguish and concern after being abruptly “disinvited” from a Mumbai University event, an incident that he sees as part of a larger pattern of intolerance toward dissenting voices in the country. Shah revealed that on the night of 31 January, he was informed that he need not attend the event scheduled for 1 February, without any explanation, despite having been keen to interact with students. What hurt him further was the university’s announcement to the audience that he had refused to attend, a claim he described as rubbing “salt into the wound.”
Shah has been unapologetically critical of the present political climate and has openly stated that he has never praised the self-proclaimed “Vishwaguru.” On the contrary, he has consistently questioned the manner in which power is exercised. He remarked that narcissism in leadership offends him and that he has not been impressed by a single act of governance over the past decade. For Shah, disagreement with authority is not disrespect but a moral and democratic responsibility.
In his reflections, Shah drew attention to the disturbing contradictions in the justice system and governance. He pointed out that student activists are often jailed for years without trial, while convicted rapists and murderers frequently receive bail. He also highlighted how cow vigilantes operate with impunity, how history is being rewritten, textbooks revised, and even science distorted. He expressed alarm that a Chief Minister could openly speak of harassing minorities, asking poignantly, “Just how long can this hatred be sustained?”
Shah compared the prevailing atmosphere to George Orwell’s ‘1984’, questioning whether the country has reached a stage where not praising the “great leader” is considered sedition. According to him, the expectation of unquestioning loyalty and enforced admiration is eroding the very foundations of free thought and democratic debate.
Addressing the controversy around his disinvitation, Shah noted that the authorities lacked the courage to state the truth—that he openly speaks against the government—and instead falsely claimed that he had declined the invitation. Such actions, he argued, reflect a growing culture of fear where institutions choose compliance over integrity.
In perhaps his most emotionally charged statement, Shah said this is not the country he grew up in or was taught to love. He observed that the “thought police” and “doublespeak” described by Orwell appear to be in full force today, accompanied by expanding surveillance and suppression. In a Marathi rendering of his concern, Shah lamented that what was once “two minutes of hate” has now transformed into “twenty-four hours of hatred,” while student activists are imprisoned for years without proven guilt.
Together, these statements underline a serious warning from one of India’s most respected cultural voices—that silencing dissent, misrepresenting critics, and institutionalising hatred pose a grave threat to democracy, academic freedom, and the constitutional promise of free expression.
Many voices on social media strongly condemn the detention of Dr Sangram Patil and his wife under the pretext of investigation and the subsequent use of a Look Out Circular to prevent them from leaving the country. Taking such coercive action solely on the basis of criticism expressed on social media amounts to a direct assault on democratic values, freedom of expression, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Registering an FIR, stopping a citizen at an international airport, and dragging a family member into police action—despite the absence of any violence or criminal intent—reflects an alarming pattern of state repression. Criticism, dissent, and the right to question those in power are the very foundations of democracy. Opposition to the government or ruling party cannot and must not be treated as a criminal offence.
All these incidents clearly point toward a dangerous and common pattern: a systematic attempt to silence writers, artists, thinkers, and intellectuals whose ideas challenge those in power.
Freedom of expression is not a charity granted by the State; it is a constitutional value earned through the historic struggles of the people. The responsibility of safeguarding this value lies not only with writers, artists, and intellectuals, but with all democracy-loving citizens.
Therefore, demand is coming from activists for the immediate withdrawal of the FIR against Dr Sangram Patil, the cancellation of the Look Out Circular issued against him, restoration of his right to travel freely, and an immediate end to the misuse of police and administrative machinery against citizens exercising their right to free expression. Several organisation calls upon writers, poets, journalists, intellectuals, and all democracy-loving citizens across the state to stand firmly against this unjust and arbitrary action.Collective resistance through culture, literature, and critical thought remains our unwavering commitment against every attempt to silence dissent. No democracy can survive if writers, intellectuals, artists, and conscious citizens are forced to live under fear and intimidation. Such restrictions on free expression constitute a blatant violation of constitutional principles and pose a grave threat to democratic dialogue and intellectual freedom in the country.
