Aaditya Thackeray rejects ₹500-crore defamation notice over Disha Salian posts
Synopsis
Aaditya Thackeray has hit back hard at a ₹500-crore defamation notice from Disha Salian's father — calling it 'frivolous', pointing to contradictions in the family's own past legal filings, and warning Satish Salian to withdraw within seven days or face court costs. The case reignites one of Maharashtra's most politically charged controversies with the CBI probe still live.
Key Takeaways
Aaditya Thackeray on 23 September 2026 formally rejected a ₹500-crore defamation notice from Satish Salian , father of the late Disha Salian .
The notice stemmed from Thackeray's posts on X dated 16 September 2026 , which Salian alleged were defamatory.
Thackeray's counsel described the ₹500-crore demand as 'false, legally misconceived and arbitrary, devoid of any computational basis.' Thackeray's reply cited FIR C.R.
118 of 2022 and a Dindoshi Sessions Court order as contradicting the family's current legal stance.
Salian has been given seven days to withdraw the notice or face legal counter-action over costs and consequences.
Thackeray reiterated his call for a fair and independent CBI probe with no media trial or political interference.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray on Wednesday, 23 September 2026, formally rejected a ₹500-crore defamation notice served by Satish Salian, father of the late Disha Salian, calling it 'frivolous' and categorically denying he had ever known her. Thackeray refused to apologise, retract his posts, or pay any compensation.
The Notice and Its Origins
The defamation notice was issued on 17 September 2026 by Salian's counsel, Adv. Anushka Sonawane. Salian alleged that Thackeray's English and Marathi posts on X (formerly Twitter), published on 16 September 2026, carried defamatory narratives and demanded ₹500 crore in damages alongside public apologies.
The notice came against the backdrop of a prolonged political and media controversy surrounding Disha Salian's death — a case that has been repeatedly invoked in Maharashtra's fractured political landscape.
Thackeray's Legal Response
Replying through his Supreme Court advocate Anshuman Sinha, Thackeray's legal team argued that his social media posts never named or identified Satish Salian, and that a cause of action cannot be manufactured by inserting a party's name into general commentary about an ongoing political campaign. The ₹500-crore demand was characterised as 'false, legally misconceived and arbitrary, devoid of any computational basis or identified financial loss.'
Thackeray reaffirmed that he has 'never met or known Disha Salian' and declined demands to delete his posts, issue an apology, or retract his statements. He also reiterated his call for an independent and fair Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, free from media trials or political distractions.
Contradictions With Earlier Filings
The reply notably pointed to what it described as contradictions between Salian's current claims and the family's own earlier public statements and legal filings. According to Thackeray's counsel, FIR C.R. No. 118 of 2022 registered at Malvani Police Station and a 16 March 2022 order by the Dindoshi Sessions Court both show the family attributing Disha Salian's death to financial depression under the influence of alcohol, while accusing political actors of defaming the family by circulating rumours.
Thackeray's team further noted that while the Bombay High Court had directed a CBI investigation, no adverse findings were recorded against Thackeray or any individual, and the court had mandated that no person be treated as an accused unless sufficient grounds emerged from evidence.
Counter-Warning Issued
Thackeray's counsel advised Salian to withdraw the 'misconceived' notice within seven days, warning that any further civil or criminal proceedings based on what they called fabricated interpretations would be contested firmly in court — at Salian's risk regarding costs and legal consequences.
With the CBI probe still ongoing and political tensions in Maharashtra running high, this legal confrontation is unlikely to be the last word in what has become one of the state's most contested post-mortem controversies.
Point of View
By Thackeray's own legal team's account — looks less like a serious litigation claim and more like a political pressure tool. What is striking is how the reply turns the notice against its sender: by citing the family's own earlier FIR and the Dindoshi Sessions Court order, Thackeray's counsel is essentially arguing that the current narrative contradicts the very record Salian helped create in 2022. The broader pattern here is one of a case that refuses to find legal closure — the Bombay High Court-directed CBI probe has yet to produce findings that stick, and both sides are using the vacuum to prosecute their versions in the court of public opinion. Maharashtra's electorate is watching a legal dispute that is also, unmistakably, a political one.
NationPress
23 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ₹500-crore defamation notice against Aaditya Thackeray?
It is a legal notice issued on 17 September 2026 by Satish Salian, father of the late Disha Salian, through his counsel Adv. Anushka Sonawane. Salian alleged that Thackeray's posts on X dated 16 September 2026 contained defamatory content, and he sought ₹500 crore in damages along with public apologies.
How did Aaditya Thackeray respond to the notice?
Thackeray rejected the notice through his Supreme Court advocate Anshuman Sinha, calling it 'frivolous' and 'legally misconceived'. He denied ever meeting or knowing Disha Salian, refused to delete his posts or apologise, and warned Satish Salian to withdraw the notice within seven days.
What contradictions did Thackeray's legal reply highlight?
Thackeray's counsel pointed to FIR C.R. No. 118 of 2022 at Malvani Police Station and a 16 March 2022 Dindoshi Sessions Court order, in which the family attributed Disha Salian's death to financial depression under the influence of alcohol and accused political actors of defaming them. The reply argued these filings contradict Salian's current defamation claims.
What is the status of the CBI investigation into Disha Salian's death?
The Bombay High Court had directed a CBI investigation into the case. Thackeray's reply noted that the court recorded no adverse findings against him or any individual, and stipulated that no person should be treated as an accused unless sufficient evidence emerged.
What happens if Satish Salian does not withdraw the notice?
Thackeray's counsel warned that any further civil or criminal proceedings based on what it described as fabricated interpretations would be contested firmly in court, with costs and legal consequences falling on Salian. Salian was given a seven-day window to withdraw the notice.
