Rs 500 Crore Defamation Notice Targets Aaditya Thackeray Over Disha Salian Case

In a dramatic escalation of a legal battle that began after the untimely death of Disha Salian, the father of the deceased, Satish Salian, has served a Rs 500 crore notice on Maharashtra political heavyweight Aaditya Thackeray. The document, lodged through counsel, accuses the Shiv Sena (UBT) scion of weaponising the tragedy to tarnish the grieving father’s reputation and of spreading false narratives about the ongoing investigation.

Background of the Disha Salian tragedy

Disha Salian, a 28‑year‑old professional, fell from a high‑rise apartment building in Malad, Mumbai, on 8 June 2020. Local police immediately recorded the incident as an accidental death and filed an Accidental Death Report (ADR). Within a week, the film industry mourned the loss of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, whose own death added a layer of public intrigue to the case.

Initially, Satish Salian, Disha’s father, maintained that he did not suspect any foul play. However, he soon petitioned the Bombay High Court for a fresh FIR and a reinvestigation, alleging that a network of powerful individuals might have been involved. The petition named several personalities, including Aaditya Thackeray, actor‑turn‑politician Dino Morea, and actor Sooraj Pancholi.

CBI’s involvement and the recent notice

Six years after the incident, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) assumed control of the probe, filing an FIR that listed Aaditya Thackeray among other suspects. In response, Thackeray issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter) denying any personal connection to Disha and branding the repeated references to his name as a deliberate character assault.

The legal notice now sent to Thackeray claims that he, along with former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh (NCP‑SP), attempted to depict Satish Salian’s pursuit of justice as a “politically motivated, malicious, and ulterior‑objective‑driven” campaign. The notice demands Rs 500 crore in damages for defamation and seeks an unconditional, public written apology to be broadcast across print, television, and digital platforms.

Key allegations in the notice

• Defamation of motives: The notice asserts that Thackeray labelled the father’s legal efforts as a tool for political gain, thereby maligning his integrity.

• False statements about the CBI: It accuses Thackeray of claiming that the CBI had already cleared the case, a claim the notice describes as baseless.

• Character assassination: The document quotes Thackeray as saying Salian was being used “as a tool to harass,” a portrayal the notice deems reckless and without evidence.

• Collusion with Anil Deshmukh: The notice references a March 2025 remark by Deshmukh that described the case as a “conspiracy to defame Aaditya Thackeray,” arguing that the comment amplified a false narrative.

Demand for a public apology

Beyond monetary compensation, the notice specifies a three‑minute video apology to be posted on the official social‑media accounts of both Thackeray and Deshmukh. The apology must be disseminated through major newspapers, TV channels, and leading digital portals, ensuring the correction reaches the widest possible audience.

Thackeray’s response to the allegations

On the same day the notice was publicised, Thackeray reiterated his earlier denial, stating, “I have never met Disha Salian, nor have I had any acquaintance with her.” He framed the repeated linking of his name to the case as “an evidence‑free attempt at character assassination by a few individuals with clear political and personal motives, for almost six years.” Thackeray refrained from naming anyone directly but hinted that the ruling BJP‑led alliance had been trying to drag him into the controversy.

He also urged the investigative agencies to proceed without “malicious distractions and character assassination for political motives.”

Legal and political implications

If the court upholds the notice’s claims, Thackeray could face a massive financial liability that would reverberate through Maharashtra’s political landscape. A Rs 500 crore award would not only be punitive but could also set a precedent for how defamation suits involving public figures are handled in India.

Moreover, the case highlights a broader trend where political leaders are increasingly drawn into high‑profile criminal investigations, often leading to a blend of legal and electoral narratives. The involvement of the CBI, a central agency, adds another layer of complexity, especially given the agency’s historical entanglements with politically sensitive cases.

Public reaction and media coverage

The notice has sparked vigorous debate on social media platforms, with some commentators accusing Thackeray of trying to silence a grieving father, while others view the demand for a hefty damages claim as an overreach. Major news outlets have reiterated the timeline of events, emphasizing the shift from an accidental death report to a full‑scale criminal investigation.

In the meantime, the FIR filed by the CBI continues to list Aaditya Thackeray, Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi, actress Rhea Chakraborty, and several medical personnel involved in the post‑mortem as persons of interest. The investigation remains open, and further developments are expected as the legal process unfolds.

What lies ahead?

Both parties appear poised for a protracted legal confrontation. Satish Salian’s team is likely to press for the public apology and the full damages amount, while Thackeray’s counsel will probably contest the defamation claims and seek a dismissal of the notice.

Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores how personal tragedies can become entangled with political maneuvering, raising questions about the balance between seeking justice and navigating the turbulent waters of public opinion.