Bombay High Court Rejected Aditya Thackeray’s Objections That He Had No Connection With Disha Salian’s Death, That the Petition Was Politically Motivated and That the CBI Had Already Given Him a Clean Chit
CBI’s Submission Before High Court Revealed It Had Never Investigated Disha Salian’s Death; Aditya Thackeray’s Lawyers Subsequently Tendered an Unconditional Apology
CBI Registers FIR Naming Aditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray, Param Bir Singh and Others in Connection With Allegations of Gang Rape, Murder, Criminal Conspiracy and Destruction of Evidence
Defamatory Campaign Allegedly Continued Despite High Court’s Order and CBI FIR; Two Legal Notices of ₹500 Crore Each Failed to Secure Withdrawal of Statements and Removal of Posts
No Advocate Appeared for Aditya Thackeray at Wednesday’s Hearing; Failure to Appear After Service of Summons Could Result in Ex Parte Proceedings
Court to Hear Plea for ₹2,000-Crore Bank Guarantee, Attachment of Properties and Bank Accounts, Civil Imprisonment and Removal of Defamatory Content on November 4
Mumbai/Thane, October 21, 2026: In a significant development in the legal battle surrounding the death of Disha Salian, a civil court in Thane has ordered the issuance of summons to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray, former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, MP Sanjay Raut and six other defendants in a ₹2,000-crore defamation suit filed by Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian.
The order was passed in Special Civil Suit No. 469 of 2026, Satish Salian v. Aditya Thackeray and Others, after the court heard submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff.
The court also ordered issuance of notices on an interim application seeking a ₹2,000-crore bank guarantee, attachment of movable and immovable properties and bank accounts, civil imprisonment in the event of failure to furnish security in accordance with law, and removal of defamatory publications.
Significantly, no advocate appeared on behalf of Aditya Thackeray during Wednesday’s hearing.
Following the order, an authorised court officer, the bailiff, will visit Matoshree to personally serve summons on Aditya Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray, subject to the applicable procedure for service. The remaining defendants will be served at their respective residential addresses.
The next hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2026.
Aditya Thackeray’s High Court Defence: ‘No Evidence, No Connection, Politically Motivated Petition and CBI Clean Chit’
The defamation proceedings follow the earlier litigation initiated by Satish Salian before the Bombay High Court seeking registration of an FIR and investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death.
Opposing that petition, Aditya Thackeray filed an affidavit, while his advocates advanced objections during oral arguments.
His defence was that he had no connection with Disha Salian’s death, that Satish Salian possessed no credible evidence supporting his accusations, that no foul play had occurred and that the petition was motivated by political considerations.
It was further contended that the Mumbai Police had already investigated the matter and that the CBI had also conducted an inquiry and granted Aditya Thackeray a clean chit.
On these grounds, Aditya Thackeray sought dismissal of Satish Salian’s petition and opposed any direction for registration of an FIR or investigation by the CBI.
However, the claim of an earlier CBI clean chit became a major point of controversy during the High Court proceedings.
According to the account of those proceedings, the CBI informed the High Court that it had never previously investigated Disha Salian’s death. The submission directly contradicted the assertion that the agency had already conducted an investigation and cleared Aditya Thackeray.
Following this development, Aditya Thackeray’s advocates tendered an unconditional apology before the High Court on August 28, 2026, concerning the incorrect claim.
The Bombay High Court subsequently declined to accept the objections raised against an independent criminal investigation.
The court examined serious inconsistencies in the earlier investigative process, suspicious circumstances surrounding the death and significant questions concerning forensic and other evidence.
On September 2, 2026, the Bombay High Court directed registration of an FIR on Satish Salian’s complaint and ordered an investigation by the CBI.
The order marked a significant development in Satish Salian’s efforts to secure an independent investigation into his daughter’s death.
CBI Registers FIR Under Gang Rape, Murder and Criminal Conspiracy Provisions
Following the High Court’s directions, the CBI registered FIR No. RC.6(S)/2026/CBI/SC-II/New Delhi.
The case names Aditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh, dismissed police officer Sachin Waze and several other persons in connection with serious criminal allegations.
The FIR invokes Sections 120-B, 376-D, 302, 201, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, covering criminal conspiracy, gang rape, murder, destruction of evidence and offences relating to misconduct by public servants and preparation of incorrect official records to shield offenders.
The allegations include the suppression and tampering of evidence, fabrication of official records and attempts to protect persons suspected of involvement in the offences.
Defamation Continued Despite High Court’s Order and CBI FIR, Suit Contends
The central issue in the ₹2,000-crore defamation suit is the continued portrayal of Satish Salian’s legal battle as a politically motivated exercise, even after the High Court ordered registration of an FIR and an independent CBI investigation.
Aditya Thackeray’s objections to the criminal investigation had been rejected. The assertion of an earlier CBI clean chit had been contradicted by the agency’s submission, prompting an unconditional apology from his lawyers. The High Court had ordered a fresh investigation, and the CBI had subsequently registered an FIR involving serious offences.
Yet the narrative that Satish Salian’s petition was politically motivated continued to circulate through public statements, social media posts and communications attributed to Aditya Thackeray, his spokespersons and political workers.
The suit challenges the continued publication and repetition of these statements after the High Court proceedings and the registration of the CBI FIR.
It seeks to hold the defendants accountable for the reputational damage caused by portraying a father’s pursuit of justice for his daughter as a politically motivated conspiracy.
The litigation raises a substantial question concerning the protection of an individual’s reputation while exercising the legal right to seek an independent criminal investigation.
Two ₹500-Crore Legal Notices Issued Before Filing of Suit
Before instituting the civil proceedings, Satish Salian issued two legal notices of ₹500 crore each to the concerned parties.
The notices demanded withdrawal of the statements challenged as defamatory, removal of objectionable social media posts, videos and digital publications, and accountability for the damage caused to his reputation.
The notices also provided an opportunity to withdraw the disputed allegations and discontinue their publication.
However, the disputed posts remained online, and the statements challenged as defamatory continued to be circulated.
The failure to withdraw the statements or remove the disputed publications despite the legal notices ultimately led to the filing of the ₹2,000-crore defamation suit before the Thane civil court.
Court Bailiff to Visit Matoshree; Nine Defendants Face Summons
The suit names nine defendants: Aditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray, Sanjay Raut, Anil Deshmukh, Sushma Andhare, journalist Nikhil Wagle, Varun Sardesai, Akhil Chitre and advocate Aseem Sarode.
Following Wednesday’s order, the court will initiate the formal process of serving summons.
An authorised court bailiff will visit Matoshree to serve summons personally on Aditya Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray in accordance with the applicable procedure.
The remaining defendants will also be served with summons and notices at their respective residential addresses.
The service of summons will formally call upon the defendants to respond to the proceedings before the competent civil court.
No Lawyer Appeared for Aditya Thackeray; Ex Parte Proceedings Possible if Summons Are Ignored
No advocate appeared on behalf of Aditya Thackeray during the October 21 hearing.
Once summons are duly served, the defendants will have an opportunity to enter appearance and contest the proceedings.
Under Order IX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where summons have been duly served and a defendant fails to appear, the court may proceed ex parte.
In such circumstances, the court may examine the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence and, if the legal requirements are satisfied, pass an ex parte judgment and decree.
An ex parte decree for damages is not automatic. The court must still assess whether the plaintiff has established entitlement to the relief claimed.
₹2,000-Crore Bank Guarantee, Attachment of Assets and Civil Imprisonment Sought
Alongside the principal defamation suit, Satish Salian has moved an interim application seeking substantial protective reliefs.
The application requests the court to direct the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹2,000 crore to secure the monetary claim.
It further seeks attachment of movable and immovable properties and bank accounts, together with proceedings for detention in civil prison if the defendants fail to furnish security required under a lawful court order and the statutory conditions for such action are satisfied.
The application also seeks directions requiring removal of defamatory social media posts, videos, public statements and other digital publications, along with public apologies from the concerned defendants.
The court has ordered issuance of notices on the interim application, which is listed for hearing on November 4, 2026.
The defendants will have an opportunity to respond to the application in accordance with the court’s directions.
The court has not yet ordered the defendants to furnish the bank guarantee, attached their properties or directed anyone’s detention in civil prison. Those reliefs remain pending consideration.
Thirty Days Ordinarily Available to File Written Statements in Main Suit
The principal claim for ₹2,000 crore in damages and the interim application are governed by separate procedural requirements.
Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendants are ordinarily required to file their written statements within 30 days from service of summons, subject to the applicable provisions governing extensions.
The written statements in the main suit will address the substantive claim for ₹2,000 crore in damages.
Separately, the interim application seeking a bank guarantee, attachment of assets, civil imprisonment and removal of disputed publications is scheduled for hearing on November 4, 2026. Aditya Thackeray and other defendants are bound to file their reply affidavit before the said date.
Advocates Ishwarlal Agarwal, Anushka Sonawane, Tanveer Nizam and Abhishek Mishra Advance Arguments
During Wednesday’s hearing, Advocates Ishwarlal Agarwal, Anushka Sonawane, Tanveer Nizam and Abhishek Mishra, along with other lawyers, appeared on behalf of Satish Salian.
The advocates drew the court’s attention to the earlier High Court proceedings, the controversy surrounding the claimed CBI clean chit, the subsequent apology, the directions for registration of an FIR and the continued circulation of statements challenged as defamatory.
They also referred to the two legal notices issued before the institution of the suit and the failure to withdraw the disputed publications.
The legal team emphasised the need for effective judicial protection of the reputation and legal rights of a father pursuing remedies in connection with his daughter’s death.
After hearing the submissions, the court ordered issuance of summons in the main suit and notices on the interim application.
All Eyes on November 4 as ₹2,000-Crore Defamation Battle Moves Forward
The Thane court’s order brings the ₹2,000-crore defamation litigation to its next procedural stage.
The main suit seeks substantial compensation for reputational harm, while the interim application seeks immediate measures to secure the claim and prevent further publication of the statements challenged as defamatory.
The next hearing on November 4 will focus on the interim application seeking a ₹2,000-crore bank guarantee, attachment of assets, civil imprisonment in accordance with law and removal of disputed digital publications.
With summons ordered against Aditya Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray and seven other defendants, attention now turns to the service of summons and the defendants’ responses.
‘Aditya Thackeray, Haazir Ho!’ — The court’s order sets the stage for service of summons at Matoshree and the next hearing in the ₹2,000-crore defamation battle.
Next Hearing: November 4, 2026 — Thane Civil Court.
