Here it is:

Three issues I have with Dear Comrade: the way due process for sexual harassment (SH) is dealt with, the portrayal of mental health + therapy, and Bobby.

Bobby: The director takes an angry college student and gives us a sound healer (?) who eventually turns to anger.

While the new Bobby bears a sweet smile, the saviour complex and the problem of imposing his views + actions on people he cares for (for their supposed good) remain

For Anita, Bobby angrily beats the harasser. He asks her 'buddhunda' for tolerating the accused.

*2hrs of run time later*

For Lilly, Bobby angrily beats the SH accused & angrily drags her to the station. He calls Lilly a coward for giving up.

Bobby is now a due process enthusiast. It could have been slightly more tolerable if Bobby didn't return after 3 years, accidentally that too.

He takes things into control. He raises a complaint against the accused. And says he is gonna support her. Ummm what??

+ How's that being a comrade?
If flawed was what the director was aiming at, he could have fleshed out the scenes where Lilly calls him out.
Could have given more space to the refreshing honesty we rarely see in Telugu movies. Instead, we have an angrier Bobby

Who helped the team conceptualise the hearing? It was messed up.
The problem with romanticising due process as courage and not wanting to file cases as fear is that it damages the very cause that the director set off to accomplish.

Mental health:
The 10mins part where Bobby kidnaps Lilly from a psychiatric ward is insensitive. Also, illegal.

The reason why Tollywood directors need a lesson on consent before every film they make. Lilly is visibly protesting, scared and unwilling. But Bobby knows better :/

One doesn't pick trauma patients, replace medication, therapy with sound healing. No matter how much you love someone, you can't treat them like a DIY project. Yet, he takes her away, "heals" her and presents her to the family. Such irresponsible depiction.

Other issues:
The title justification is absurd and I am not even getting into explaining that.

At one point, when Lilly asks him to marry, Bobby asks how can she play cricket after marriage.
What a comrade lol.

Lilly's father: Lousy acting aside, it seems like a lazy characterisation to make Bobby look like the better man.
The conflict between Lilly's father and Bobby is not so much about love as it is about 'ownership.'
Would the father be so angry if Bobby and Lilly were married?

Rubina:
Does she not deserve justice?
I understand that director might have tried to show the struggles of people trying to pursue sports.
But why was Rubina's character ghettoised as a tailor once she is forced to quit cricket?
Why isn't Lilly making pacchadlu and appadalu then?

Also, another classic example of Bobby deciding for others. At Anita's wedding, Bobby invites the guy who harassed her during college. Anita and everyone else look shocked and they are just forced to accept it.
Please don't do this shit.

The problem isn't flawed characters. The problem is the justification. And if one is writing flawed characters, ensure you don't intentionally/unintentionally do that.

The final frame isn't of Lilly. It freezes on Bobby, a 'content' hero looking at the woman he loves.

End.