Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena chief Sunil Shukla has moved the Bombay High Court seeking police protection, SIT probe, and action against Raj Thackeray’s MNS for alleged hate speech and threats. The plea follows claims of violence and intimidation against north Indians.
Mumbai: Sunil Shukla, the National President of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, has now approached the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) and its leader Raj Thackeray after withdrawing his petition from the Supreme Court.
In his petition before the High Court, Shukla has requested police protection for himself and his family.
He has also asked the court to direct the Election Commission of India to take strict action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which could include derecognising the MNS for allegedly spreading hatred and creating enmity among communities.
In addition, he has sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate incidents of hate speech, threats, and physical violence carried out by MNS workers.
As part of his interim relief request, Shukla wants the court to stop Raj Thackeray from delivering any provocative speeches until the matter is decided.
Earlier, Shukla had approached the Supreme Court claiming that the Maharashtra government and police failed to act on his repeated requests to register criminal cases against MNS members involved in violence, threats, and harassment.
According to him, his campaign for the rights of north Indians made him a direct target for intimidation by the MNS and its affiliated groups.
In his detailed plea before the Bombay High Court, Shukla has alleged that on October 6, 2024, around 3 pm, about 30 individuals affiliated with the MNS and allied groups entered the office premises of his political party and tried to ransack the property.
He further said that after this incident, both he and his family started receiving multiple threat calls from MNS workers. He claims that despite filing complaints against those involved and following up with the concerned authorities for the past 10 months, no action has been taken.
Initially, Shukla had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. However, during the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran questioned his choice of forum.
The CJI remarked,
“Is the Bombay High Court on vacation?”,
prompting Shukla’s lawyer to withdraw the plea.
The Supreme Court bench, without making any observations on the merits of the case, allowed Shukla to withdraw his petition so that he could approach the Bombay High Court.
Background
A petition against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray has stirred legal attention, with allegations of hate speech, threats, and violence targeted at North Indians in Maharashtra for not speaking Marathi.
The petitioner had sought the Supreme Court’s direction to register an FIR against Thackeray and to have the MNS derecognised by the Election Commission of India for allegedly promoting linguistic hatred.
The matter first came before a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. During the hearing, the CJI asked, “Is the High Court of Bombay on leave?” prompting the petitioner’s counsel to reply, “May I withdraw.”
The bench then recorded,
“Learned counsel for petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach jurisdictional High Court. We clearify that we have not considered the merits of case.”
This was not the first time such a plea had reached the top court. On July 25, a separate petition filed by Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay accused Raj Thackeray of delivering provocative speeches that allegedly fuelled hatred between linguistic communities.
That matter, heard by a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan, was also not entertained at the Supreme Court level, with the court stating,
“We dispose of this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, giving liberty to the petitioner herein to approach High Court if so advised.”
Upadhyay’s plea alleged that Thackeray’s repeated remarks were creating a deep divide between Marathi and Hindi-speaking communities, and that they threatened India’s unity and integrity. Represented by Advocate Subhash Jha, the petitioner argued,
“My lords, this petition takes exception to larger issue. One of the larger issue which has been raised is this that that these kinds of incidents are on rise, in spite of this Court taking serious view of the matter in number of cases.”
Citing a media report, the plea claimed that Thackeray justified violence against non-Marathi speakers. It further alleged that,
“Thackery in desperation to occupy some seats in the forthcoming election of Mumbai Municipal Corporation, has been making fiery speeches from time to time against Hindi speaking people and thereby he has been promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of place of birth, residence and language which is prejudicial not only to the maintenance of harmony, but also endangering to sovereignly, unity and integrity of India.”
With both petitions now redirected to lower courts, the legal battle over Raj Thackeray’s alleged hate speech and its impact on social harmony is set to continue in the High Court, should the petitioners pursue the matter further.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Raj Thackeray
