Facing Hate for Speaking Hindi in Maharashtra? SC Tells Petitioner to Knock on Bombay HC’s Door

The Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asked the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court instead.

"Is the Bombay High Court on vacation?" the CJI remarked pointedly when the matter was taken up.

Following this, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the plea.

“Learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits,” the Court recorded.

During the hearing, Advocates Abid Ali Beeran, Sriram Parakkat, Anandhu S. Nair and Maneesha Sunil Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

In his petition, the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena chief, a resident of Mumbai, alleged that his advocacy for North Indian rights had made him a repeated target of MNS-led harassment and violence. He claimed that on October 6, 2024, around 30 MNS-affiliated individuals attempted to ransack his party office in Mumbai, an incident that, according to him, was caught on video.

The petition filed through AoR Sriram Parakkat further referred to an inflammatory speech delivered by the MNS chief during a Gudi Padwa rally on March 30, 2025. Broadcast on ABP Maza, the speech allegedly incited attacks on Hindi-speaking workers across Mumbai, particularly in Powai and Versova.

Citing over 100 anonymous threat calls and a tweet explicitly inciting his murder, the petitioner argued that his life and liberty were at stake. He also highlighted the authorities' inaction despite written complaints to the Chief Minister, Director General of Police, and the Election Commission. No FIR had been registered, and no protection granted, he said.

The plea invoked multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (outraging religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and also Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits promotion of enmity in connection with elections.

The Petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. Direct the police authorities (Respondents No. 2 and 3) to:

-Provide immediate protection to the Petitioner and his family.

-Register FIRs and begin a criminal investigation based on the Petitioner’s complaints.

2. Direct the Election Commission (Respondent No. 4) to consider taking action against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), including possible derecognition of the party, for promoting hatred and enmity.

3. Order that an independent agency or Special Investigation Team (SIT) conduct the investigation into the incidents of hate speech, threats, and violence, to ensure fairness.

4. Restrain Raj Thackeray (Respondent No. 5) from making any further provocative or inciteful public statements while the investigation is ongoing.

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene at this stage, the petitioner is now expected to approach the Bombay High Court.