Mumbai: In the Disha Salian case, Aaditya Thackeray has once again claimed, “I have never met her; I do not know her.” In his social-media post dated 16 September 2026, he categorically stated: “I have never met or known Disha Salian.” He has further claimed that linking his name with the case is an attempt at character assassination driven by political and personal motives.
In the Disha Salian case, Aaditya Thackeray had also claimed: “I was not there on 8 June. My grandfather Patankar had passed away. I was in Dombivli, outside Mumbai.”
However, the falsity of this claim stands exposed by the fact that his grandfather Patankar was alive on 8 June and passed away on 14 June. Further, on 8 June, Aaditya Thackeray’s mobile-tower location was found in the very area where Disha Salian died.
In addition, there are eyewitnesses who have given the testimony that Aaditya Thackeray and the other accused assaulted Disha Salian and murdered her, and thereafter conspired with police officials to portray her death as a suicide. A pen drive containing videos of the statements/information given by these eyewitnesses, detailing the entire sequence of events, has been handed over to the CBI.
Thus, the claim that he was outside Mumbai on 8 June, the explanation regarding his grandfather’s death, the mobile-tower-location information contradicting that explanation, and the information furnished by eyewitnesses—all these circumstances show how repeatedly false statements have allegedly been made. Yet, his blind followers continue to glorify him.
Even earlier, Aaditya Thackeray had repeatedly made claims in the nature of “I don’t know him,” “I don’t know Rhea Chakraborty,” and “I don’t know Sanjay Gupta.” However, evidence that subsequently emerged exposed the falsity of these claims.
The ‘CBI Clean Chit’ Claim Before the High Court
In the affidavit filed by Aaditya Thackeray before the High Court, he claimed that the CBI had investigated the Disha Salian case and had given him a “clean chit.” However, the High Court expressly recorded the factual position placed before it by counsel for the CBI, and it became clear that the factual position was not as represented by Aaditya Thackeray in his affidavit. The reason was that the CBI had never independently investigated Disha Salian’s death.
Thereafter, Aaditya Thackeray’s counsel also tendered an apology before the High Court on this issue.
It makes it clear that Aaditya Thackeray has repeatedly made false claims and, particularly in the Disha Salian case, has been setting up false defences to protect himself.
From a legal perspective, this issue is also extremely significant. Where a defence taken by an accused is proved to be false, such a false defence can constitute an additional circumstance strengthening an already existing chain of incriminating circumstances, and the law permits such false defence to be considered against the accused and is a proof that the accused is an author of crime. [Prem Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 3 SCC 372 (paragraph 44); Bajirao v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 121.]
The Same ‘I Don’t Know Him’ Defence in the Rhea Chakraborty Matter!
When the Sushant Singh Rajput case was in the news, Rhea Chakraborty, in a statement issued through her lawyer in August 2020, categorically stated that she did not know Aaditya Thackeray, had never met him and had never spoken to him over the phone or through any other medium. The Indian Express, India Today and Times of India reported this statement at the time.
Rhea also claimed in her NDTV interview that she had never met or spoken to Aaditya Thackeray.
Subsequently, during the NCB investigation, WhatsApp chats from Rhea Chakraborty’s mobile phone as well as another mobile phone used by her were examined. Those chats established that Aaditya Thackeray and Rhea Chakraborty had known each other for several years.
Further, after obtaining bail in the drug-dealing case, Rhea Chakraborty went to meet Dino Morea. In addition, it was established from the phone-surveillance records and phone recordings in NCB Crime No. 15/2020 that Dino Morea and Aaditya Thackeray were both engaged in the drug business in Mumbai.
Sanjay Gupta Too—Dismissed as a ‘Fraud’!
This pattern is not confined to Disha Salian or Rhea Chakraborty.
On 27 January 2025, Aaditya Thackeray referred on social media to “a fraud named Sanjay Gupta”, objected to media organisations describing Sanjay Gupta as an official spokesperson of Shiv Sena (UBT), and even warned of legal action against the concerned media organisations.
Thereafter, however, Sanjay Gupta produced before the media the appointment letter showing that he had been appointed as a party spokesperson, along with photographs of himself with Aaditya Thackeray. Aaditya Thackeray did not offer any substantive rebuttal or answer those documents.
Not only that, Sanjay Gupta had been invited to numerous debates on India Today and other news channels specifically as a spokesperson for Aaditya Thackeray’s party, and he had participated in several debates in that capacity.
The entire sequence therefore raises serious questions about the truthfulness of these claims.
Look at the pattern—
Whenever a controversy erupts, does the other person suddenly become a stranger?
Whenever a relationship is questioned—“I don’t know them”?
When evidence emerges—silence?
And when evidence is demanded—an allegation of political conspiracy?
The ‘CBI Clean Chit’ Claim Before the High Court Is Even More Serious
One of the most serious issues arising from Aaditya Thackeray’s stand before the Court in the Disha Salian case concerns the “CBI clean chit” controversy.
It has been alleged on behalf of Satish Salian that Aaditya Thackeray claimed in his affidavit before the Court that the CBI had investigated the Disha Salian case and had given him a clean chit. In March 2025, Advocate Nilesh Ojha had also publicly stated that the CBI had never given Aaditya Thackeray any clean chit in the Disha Salian case.
The same issue was expressly raised in the ₹500-crore defamation notice sent by Satish Salian in September 2026. The notice alleges that Aaditya Thackeray made an incorrect representation that the CBI had investigated the matter and given him a clean chit.
A statement made in an affidavit is not an ordinary statement at a political press conference. Every statement made on oath before a Court carries responsibility.
‘I Am Not an MLA; I Am a Businessman/Social Worker’—This Too Demands an Answer!
Another serious objection has been raised by Satish Salian’s legal side regarding Aaditya Thackeray’s description in his affidavit. It is alleged that he described himself as a “Businessman and Social Worker” while omitting his status as an MLA. This allegation has also been raised in a public interview.
The question is extremely simple:
Was Aaditya Thackeray an MLA on the relevant date when the affidavit was filed, or was he not?
If he was, the original affidavit itself can establish exactly how his occupation/status was described and why. No political speech is required—the document can speak for itself.
There is also a serious allegation that, in the affidavit filed before the High Court, Aaditya Thackeray concealed the fact that he was an MLA and falsely described himself as a “Businessman/trader.”
It is further alleged that the purpose behind making such a false statement in the affidavit was that, had he disclosed his position/status as “MLA”, the question of the matter proceeding before an MP-MLA Court/Fast Track Court would have arisen, creating the possibility of an expedited decision in the case.
Thus, the allegedly false claim that the CBI had given him a “clean chit”; the alleged concealment of his status as an MLA in the affidavit while describing himself as a “Businessman”; and the allegation that this was done with the object of preventing the matter from going before an MP-MLA Court/Fast Track Court—when all these circumstances are considered together, they reveal an alleged continuing pattern of false claims and false defences even in judicial proceedings.
So Now There Is Only One Demand—Do Not Simply Believe ‘I Don’t Know Her’; Examine the Evidence!
