The Supreme Court on Monday, August 4, granted Sunil Shukla, National President of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, the liberty to approach the Bombay High Court following his plea to file a First Information Report (FIR) against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray and to seek the de-recognition of the MNS by the Election Commission of India.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran clarified in its order on Monday that the apex court had not examined the merits of Shukla's case. The bench requested the Bombay High Court to address all issues presented in the petition when considering the matter.
"Is the Bombay High Court on Vacation?" the CJI asked, prompting Shukla's lawyer to withdraw the plea. The bench, without expressing any opinion on the merits, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and move the high court.
Also Read | CM Devendra Fadnavis Defends New Security Bill, Says Law Targets Urban Naxals, Not Protesters.
Shukla sought that an FIR be lodged against Raj Thackeray, alleging that Thackeray delivered an inflammatory speech during the Gudi Padwa rally on March 30, 2025. According to the petition, Thackeray’s remarks incited violence against North Indians working in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra, particularly targeting those engaged in public-facing jobs for speaking Hindi. He had also sought protection from allegedly receiving death threats from MNS workers.
In addition to the FIR, Shukla has sought the derecognition of the MNS as a political party, arguing that its actions—allegedly driven by anti-North Indian rhetoric—are in violation of electoral and constitutional norms.
Sunil Shukla, in his plea, mentioned over 100 anonymous threat calls and social media posts which incited a threat to his life. The petitioner argued that his life and liberty were at stake. He also mentioned that despite several complaints and letters to the Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the Director General of Police, and the Election Commission. No FIR had been registered, and no protection granted.
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), and 120B (criminal conspiracy), and also Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits promoting enmity in connection with elections.