Legal reply says posts did not name Satish Salian; Thackeray stands by statement that he had never met or known Disha Salian
Mumbai: Aditya Uddhav Thackeray has rejected a ₹500-crore defamation claim raised by Satish Salian and refused demands to delete two posts published from his official X account, issue an apology or pay damages. In a legal reply dated September 23, sent through advocate Anshuman Sinha, Thackeray denied the allegations and demands contained in a legal notice issued on September 17 on behalf of Satish Salian, father of the late Disha Salian.
The notice concerned two English and Marathi posts published from Thackeray’s X account on September 16 and sought ₹500 crore as compensation and damages.
Thackeray’s central defence is that the two posts did not name Satish Salian and did not make any personal allegation against him. The reply said the posts were directed at what Thackeray described as a prolonged political and media campaign linking his name with the Disha Salian case. It argued that Satish Salian’s identity could not be inserted into general references made in the posts in order to construct a defamatory meaning. “The posts do not name Shri Satish Salian,” the reply said, while rejecting the contention that the statements amounted to defamation.
Stands by ‘never met or known Disha Salian’ statement
Thackeray also stood by his statement in the September 16 posts that he had “never met or known Disha Salian”. According to the reply, the posts constituted his response to allegations that had been publicly made against him and also called for the official investigation to continue. The reply repeatedly maintained that an investigation and allegations made during proceedings should not themselves be treated as proof of involvement.
It referred to the High Court proceedings and contended that the court had directed an investigation without making an adverse finding against any individual. According to the reply, the court had also directed that nobody should be treated as an accused unless material collected during the investigation provided sufficient grounds to raise a reasonable suspicion. On this basis, the reply said the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be allowed to conduct the investigation independently and disputed allegations should not be presented as established facts.
Questions differing statements attributed to Satish Salian
The reply also referred to what it described as “materially different” public statements attributed to Satish Salian at different stages after his daughter’s death. It cited a March 2022 order passed in an anticipatory bail matter involving Narayan Rane and Nitesh Rane and referred to an FIR lodged by Disha Salian’s mother over statements made about her daughter’s death.
Thackeray’s reply, however, said he would not speculate about the reasons for any change in Satish Salian’s position and that the investigating agency could examine the statements in their proper context. The reply further argued that filing a complaint, producing material before a court or registration of an FIR did not by itself establish the truth of the allegations or the guilt of any individual.
No deletion, apology or correction
The response categorically rejected the notice’s demand that Thackeray remove or permanently disable public access to the two September 16 posts. “My client will not remove or disable either post,” the reply stated. It also rejected demands for an apology, correction and publication of an apology through Thackeray’s official social-media accounts in English and Marathi.
The legal notice had also sought that such an apology remain prominently accessible for at least 90 days. Thackeray’s reply rejected this demand, maintaining that there was no statement requiring correction or withdrawal. The reply similarly rejected a demand that Thackeray ask media organisations and digital publications to issue corrections or apologies over reports based on his posts.
₹500-crore claim rejected
The ₹500-crore damages claim was rejected in full. Thackeray’s lawyers contended that the notice had not provided a factual calculation for the amount or established an actionable statement, specific injury or loss caused by the two posts. The reply said no compensation or damages were payable and rejected the seven-day deadline imposed through the notice for deletion, withdrawal, correction or apology. It also rejected a demand for unrestricted disclosure of account analytics, communications and other records, saying Thackeray would comply with lawful directions from a competent court or investigating authority but that such disclosure could not be demanded through a private legal notice.
Separate reply to earlier notice
The document also records that an earlier legal notice dated September 16 was received by Thackeray on September 21. His lawyers said that notice was being examined and would be answered separately. The September 23 reply concludes by rejecting all allegations and demands contained in the September 17 notice. It says Thackeray will neither withdraw the posts nor issue an apology, correction or undertaking, and will not make any payment.
His lawyers have, in turn, called upon Satish Salian to withdraw the notice and its allegations and demands within seven days of receiving the reply. They said any proceedings initiated on the basis of the disputed allegations would be contested and that Thackeray had reserved all legal rights and remedies.
