The Intervention Application Filed by Aditya Thackeray Himself Has Backfired,
Aditya Thackeray claimed that the CBI had given him a clean chit in the Disha Salian case. However, in its written clarification, the CBI stated that it had never investigated the Disha Salian case and had not granted a clean chit to Aditya Thackeray or anyone. It proved falsity of Aditya’s affidavit.
In order to avoid the fast-track hearing applicable to cases involving MPs and MLAs, Aditya Thackeray described his occupation in the affidavit as “Businessman” while concealing the fact that he is an MLA, thereby providing another instance of the false statements contained in the affidavit.
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that any person who files a false affidavit, suppresses material facts, or prepares false or fabricated documents with the intention of misleading the Court is guilty of playing a fraud upon the Court as well as upon the opposite party. Such conduct strikes at the very root of the administration of justice, undermines the rule of law, and poses a serious danger to society. Courts are duty-bound to take stern action against such offenders in accordance with law. Failure to initiate appropriate prosecution, where warranted, amounts to a failure to protect the purity of the judicial process and the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that prosecuting offenders serves a vital social purpose. As the Court has observed, “To pursue an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to sub-serve a social need. Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a state of social pollution, which is neither desired nor warranted.” No one is above the law. Whether the offender is a private individual, a police officer, an advocate, a public prosecutor, or any other public servant, such misconduct warrants strict legal action and prosecution in accordance with law.
ABCD v. Union of India, (2020) 2 SCC 52; Sundar v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310; State of Maharashtra v. Mangesh Chavan, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 672; Koppala Venkataswami v. Satrasala Lakshminarayana Chetti, AIR 1959 AP 204; Naveen Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 191; Ashok Kumar Sarogi v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3400; K. Rama Reddy v. State of A.P., 1997 SCC OnLine AP 1210; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432.
As per the law declared by the Supreme Court, an accused or a prospective accused has no right to intervene in a petition seeking registration of an FIR or transfer of investigation to the CBI. An identical intervention application, similar to the one filed by Aditya Thackeray, was filed by MP Shri Abhishek Banerjee (nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee). However, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the said intervention application, holding that an accused or a would-be accused cannot be permitted to intervene in proceedings concerning investigation. The Court further imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh upon Abhishek Banerjee for filing such an application. According to the applicant, the intervention application filed by Aditya Thackeray stands on the same legal footing and is therefore liable to be rejected. (Soumen Nandy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1191).
The Judicial Battle in the Disha Salian Death Case Reaches a Crucial Stage
The judicial proceedings in the Disha Salian death case have now reached a critical stage. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the matter for hearing at 3:00 p.m. on 24 August 2026 and has directed the counsel appearing for Aditya Thackeray to be prepared to argue not only his Intervention Application, but also the application filed by Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, alleging the filing of a false affidavit and fraud upon the Court.
The hearing will not merely determine whether the intervention application is maintainable. The Court is also expected to consider whether a false affidavit was allegedly filed with the intention of misleading the Court and, if so, whether the persons responsible should face criminal prosecution and be remanded to judicial custody.
Satish Salian Alleges Deliberate Misleading of the Court
In IA No. 2393 of 2025, Satish Salian has alleged that the affidavit filed by Aditya Thackeray is objectively false and that the intervention application founded upon it is legally unsustainable. He has, therefore, sought initiation of criminal proceedings for filing a false affidavit and has prayed that Aditya Thackeray be remanded to judicial custody in accordance with law.
The application is also stated to contain allegations concerning the role of the advocates involved.
What Are the Principal Allegations?
According to the application, the principal allegations regarding Aditya Thackeray’s affidavit are as follows:
- Aditya Thackeray allegedly claimed before the Court that the CBI and the Bihar Police had already given him a clean chit in the Disha Salian case, and therefore the petition seeking registration of an FIR and transfer of investigation to the CBI was not maintainable.
- However, according to the application, the CBI, through its official press note, categorically stated that it had never investigated the Disha Salian case and had not granted a clean chit to any person. It is therefore alleged that the statement made before the Court was contrary to the factual position.
- It is further alleged that Aditya Thackeray described his occupation in the affidavit as “Businessman” while deliberately suppressing the fact that he is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). According to the application, this was done to avoid the effect of the Supreme Court’s directions requiring expeditious and time-bound trial of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs.
- The application also alleges that an incorrect age and several other incorrect particulars were disclosed in the affidavit.
“His Own Application, Yet the Hearing Has Allegedly Been Avoided for Nearly a Year”
According to the applicant, ever since the application alleging filing of a false affidavit was filed, Aditya Thackeray and his advocates have allegedly been avoiding an effective hearing of their own intervention application for nearly one year.
The applicant contends that what initially appeared to be a legal strategy has now exposed the applicants to serious criminal and legal consequences. According to the applicant, what began as a “legal adventure” has ultimately turned into a “legal misadventure.”
All Eyes on August 24
The hearing fixed for 24 August is expected to be a significant milestone in the Disha Salian case. The Bombay High Court’s decision on the maintainability of the intervention application, the allegations of filing a false affidavit, the accusation of misleading the Court, and the prayer seeking criminal prosecution and judicial custody is likely to have important legal implications. Consequently, the proceedings are being closely watched across the State.
