The Supreme Court, on August 4, 2025, refused to entertain a writ petition seeking action against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) President Raj Thackeray for an alleged hate speech targeting Hindi-speaking individuals. The bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, directed the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for relief.
“We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. You may approach the Bombay High Court,” the bench said.
The petition was filed by Sunil Shukla, the National President of Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, a political party based in Mumbai. Shukla alleged that the hate speech by Raj Thackeray during a Gudi Padwa rally incited violence against North Indians working in customer-facing jobs across Mumbai.
According to the petition, Raj Thackeray’s speech, which was broadcasted on ABP Maza, led to violent attacks in areas like Powai and D-Mart in Versova. Shukla stated that the attacks were directly triggered by the inflammatory remarks targeting people speaking Hindi in public spaces.
The plea further outlines that Shukla and his family have been facing continuous threats, especially after this incident. He mentioned receiving over 100 anonymous threatening phone calls and a disturbing tweet that allegedly incited his murder.
“On October 6, 2024, a group of around 30 individuals associated with MNS tried to ransack the office of my political party,” the petition highlighted.
Despite submitting complaints to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, the Mumbai Police Commissioner, and even the Election Commission of India (ECI), Shukla claimed that no FIR had been registered against any of the accused persons so far.
The petitioner argued that the actions of Raj Thackeray and his party members fell under serious criminal offences including:
- Sections 153A, 295A, 504, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for promoting enmity based on language and region
Shukla’s petition sought the following directions from the Supreme Court:
- Immediate police protection for himself and his family, and registration of FIRs under relevant IPC sections.
- Deregistration of MNS by the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Act.
- Constitution of an independent investigation team or SIT to ensure a fair probe into the alleged hate speech and attacks.
- Temporary restraint on Raj Thackeray from delivering any more provocative speeches until the completion of the investigation.
The petition was filed through Advocates Abid Ali Beeran, Sriram Parakkat, Anandhu S. Nair, and Maneesha Sunil Kumar, with Sriram P. as the Advocate-on-Record.
While the Supreme Court refused to intervene directly, the petitioner still retains the legal option to approach the Bombay High Court, as advised by the bench.
“We grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court under appropriate jurisdiction,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Sunil Shukla vs. Union of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No.: 316/2025