The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray and his party workers for allegedly assaulting Hindi-speaking people in Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad asked the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Subhash Jha, to clarify the legal standing of the PIL. The petition also demanded that the MNS be derecognized as a political party.
The petition, filed by Ghanshyam Dayalu Upadhyay in July 2025, claimed that Thackeray and MNS cadres had indulged in mob violence against migrants from Hindi-speaking states since 2005. It alleged that such acts endangered India’s sovereignty, integrity, and unity while being carried out with “complete impunity.”
The petitioner referred to government resolutions issued in April and June 2025 mandating a three-language policy in Maharashtra’s primary schools, including Hindi. According to the petition, these resolutions gave Raj Thackeray and his cousin Uddhav Thackeray an opportunity to forge an alliance opposing Hindi as a third language in schools.
Upadhyay alleged that Raj Thackeray had delivered speeches that promoted enmity on grounds of place of birth, residence, and language. At his behest, the petition claimed, MNS workers had beaten and lynched people from states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, in addition to targeting their shops and businesses.
Quoting Thackeray’s speeches, the PIL stated: “Raj Thackeray publicly proclaimed that these are just trailers and if Hindi is not stopped, his people would definitely hit the Hindi-speaking people.”
The petition further alleged that the MNS chief was using “seasonal love for Marathi pride” as a political strategy to consolidate votes in the run-up to the Mumbai municipal corporation elections.
While hearing the matter, the bench underscored the need for the petitioner to first establish the maintainability of such a PIL before the court could consider its substantive claims.
The case will be taken up for further hearing after the petitioner addresses the issue of maintainability.
