Nikhil Wagle, the controversial reporter through his video, has placed the following categorical claims before the public regarding the Disha Salian case. These claims are contrary to the available official and judicial record and create a false picture before the public.
In this case, certain so-called “paid journalists” including Nikhil Wagle, have continuously been running only one narrative—“the entire case is politically motivated.” Significantly, the very same argument was advanced on behalf of Aaditya Thackeray before the High Court through an affidavit as well as during arguments for objecting the order directing registration of an FIR. However, the Court did not accept those objections. The Court directed registration of an FIR, investigation by the CBI and consequential action. Therefore, this narrative of Aaditya Thackeray and his supporters stands rejected.
Second Claim — CBI had already investigated Disha Salian’s death and concluded that it was an accidental death
However, the available official record is exactly contrary to Nikhil Wagle’s claim. CBI had clarified on its official website itself in 2022 that the Disha Salian case had never been independently entrusted to the CBI for investigation. CBI had not conducted any independent investigation into how and under what circumstances Disha Salian died, nor had CBI arrived at any conclusion that her death was “accidental.” It is available on the CBI website.
Therefore, the claim that “CBI investigated the Disha Salian case and concluded that her death was an accidental death and that there was no foul play” is completely false.
In this case, Aaditya Thackeray filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that CBI had investigated the Disha Salian case and had given him a clean chit. The submission made by the CBI counsel in response was recorded by the Court in its order. It is clarified that the CBI had not independently investigated Disha Salian’s death. Aaditya Thackeray’s Counsel subsequently tendered an apology to the Court on this issue.
Despite this, Nikhil Wagle, who seems to be his blind supporter, whether for some package, financial consideration or any other benefit, continues to propagate false or misleading information and narratives in return for such benefit and makes such reckless, false and misleading statements.
The Court has specifically directed the CBI to investigate all angles concerning Disha Salian’s death. Therefore, it is clear that Nikhil Wagle is making false statements, running false narratives, and propagating misleading propaganda contrary to the judicial record.
Aaditya Thackeray has already apologised, and all these aspects have already come on record in the High Court’s order; yet, in Nikhil Wagle’s own “court”, the CBI has apparently still given Aaditya Thackeray a clean chit in this case!
Third Claim — The High Court ordered registration of the FIR/investigation solely on the basis of the Lalita Kumari judgment
Nikhil Wagle’s second categorical claim is that the High Court’s order was not based upon the evidence or serious discrepancies in the case, but was passed merely because of the legal principle concerning registration of FIR laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
However, the entire order dated 2 September 2026 does not even mention the judgment in Lalita Kumari. On the contrary, the High Court has extensively recorded serious discrepancies in the earlier police investigation. According to the available record, the Court described the investigation as “inadequate and ineffective” and expressly recorded that there were “too many glaring discrepancies.”
The Court took note of discrepancies in the post-mortem and forensic material, the swab/smear discrepancy, record mentioning nude body and also different versions regarding the clothes, delay in the spot panchnama, questions concerning the timing of the ADR, delayed seizure of the mobile phone and laptop, as well as serious questions arising from the timing of the police reaching the scene.
Thus, the High Court’s order was not based merely upon some legal technicality. Rather, the available record of the order shows that it was based upon consideration of serious defects and discrepancies in the previous investigation and the consequent necessity for a substantive investigation. According to the available record concerning Paragraph 39, the Court held that a proper substantive investigation had not been conducted and, therefore, registration of an FIR and investigation into the cognizable offence were necessary.
Therefore, Nikhil Wagle’s claim that “the High Court ordered registration of the FIR/investigation solely on the basis of the Lalita Kumari judgment” is contrary to the available judicial record and stands proved to be completely false.
Fourth Claim — “I do not think Aaditya Thackeray could commit such a crime.”
This statement of Nikhil Wagle is not based upon any forensic report, CDR, CCTV footage, mobile-tower-location report, eyewitness statement or judicial finding. It is merely his personal opinion. However, while expressing such an opinion, he is deliberately ignoring the serious allegations concerning Aaditya Thackeray’s role in this case and the material presently within the scope of investigation.
Aaditya Thackeray’s mobile-tower location has been found at the place where Disha Salian died. In NCB Crime No. 15/2020, it has been alleged that when the phones of Aaditya Thackeray and Dino Morea were placed under surveillance, material emerged alleging that both were involved in the drugs business in Mumbai and that Aaditya Thackeray himself drug addict and he regularly takes prohibited drug hydroponic weed. An affidavit concerning these allegations has been filed before the High Court and the material has also been handed over to the CBI.
When the CBI is investigating the truth of all these allegations, the fundamental question is: on what basis has Nikhil Wagle already issued a certificate of innocence?
The High Court has also taken detailed note of serious issues concerning the earlier investigation, including alleged false records, missing records and allegedly false statements. The Court recorded several serious discrepancies and described the previous investigation as “inadequate and ineffective”, further observing that there were “too many glaring discrepancies.”
Further, in the FIR that has been registered, the role of the concerned police officers is also under investigation, and serious allegations have been made against them of preparing false records in order to destroy evidence in the murder and gang-rape case, protect the accused and conceal the true facts.
