Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray has issued his clearest public response yet to the renewed investigation into the 2020 death of celebrity manager Disha Salian, denying that he ever met or knew her and describing attempts to connect him with the case as politically motivated character assassination.
His statement came after the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a fresh FIR following a September 2 order of the Bombay High Court. The FIR refers to Thackeray and several other people whose roles are to be examined during the investigation. Crucially, however, the CBI has not named Thackeray or anyone else as an accused at this stage.
That distinction matters because the renewed investigation has generated political claims, legal allegations and social-media speculation that go considerably further than what investigators or the court have actually established.
What Aaditya Thackeray said
Breaking his silence after the CBI FIR, Thackeray wrote on September 16 that he had never met or known Salian.
“Let’s cut through the noise and talk about facts, once again: I have never met or known Disha Salian,” he said in a public statement.
Thackeray alleged that attempts had been made for nearly six years to associate him with Salian’s death because of “political motives” and “personal enmity”. He characterised those attempts as an “evidence-free” campaign of character assassination. Those assertions about motive are Thackeray’s claims, not independently established facts.
At the same time, he did not oppose the renewed official investigation. Instead, he said the authorities should conduct it afresh and impartially, without political intervention or character assassination.
His position represents a more detailed response than the one he gave immediately after the Bombay High Court ordered the CBI investigation. On September 3, when questioned about the case in Nashik, Thackeray said the matter had nothing to do with him and asked why he should respond to it.
The new statement therefore directly addresses both his alleged connection with Salian and the CBI investigation.
What the CBI FIR actually means
The language surrounding the FIR requires careful interpretation.
The CBI registered the case after the Bombay High Court ordered the agency to investigate Salian’s death. Reports describing the FIR state that it invokes serious alleged offences, including murder, gang rape, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence. But the registration of an FIR under such provisions does not establish that those offences occurred or that any individual committed them. The allegations are now matters for investigation.
Thackeray's name appears in the material because his role is among those the agency has been asked to examine. The FIR similarly refers to other individuals, including actors Dino Morea, Sooraj Pancholi and Rhea Chakraborty.
According to reporting based on the FIR and CBI officials, none has currently been named as an accused.
This closely follows the safeguard expressly included by the Bombay High Court.
While ordering the CBI investigation, the court said that no person should be treated as an accused unless sufficient material is gathered against that person during the investigation.
That direction is particularly important when assessing claims circulating around the case. Being mentioned in an FIR as someone whose role requires investigation is legally different from being formally accused, charged or convicted.
Why the Bombay High Court ordered a fresh investigation
Disha Salian died on June 8, 2020 after falling from a residential building in Mumbai's Malad area. Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report and subsequently maintained that its investigation indicated suicide.
Her father, Satish Salian, later challenged the handling of the case and sought a fresh investigation, making allegations that his daughter had been sexually assaulted and murdered and that the true circumstances of her death had been concealed.
Those allegations remain allegations; they have not been established by a court.
What the Bombay High Court did establish in its September 2 order was that there were significant deficiencies requiring another investigation.
The court observed that the police investigation raised “more questions than answers” and found the investigation inadequate and insufficient in the circumstances. It also noted procedural issues surrounding the inquest process, including that an inquiry by an empowered magistrate under the applicable provision of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been conducted.
The bench therefore directed the CBI to appoint a suitably experienced senior officer, record Satish Salian’s statement, register an FIR and investigate all aspects surrounding his daughter's death. Mumbai Police were directed to hand over the relevant case material.
Importantly, the High Court's criticism of the earlier investigation is not itself a finding that Salian was murdered or that the allegations against any named individual are true.
The court also provided for the possibility that the CBI investigation may find that no criminal case is ultimately made out. In that situation, the agency can file an appropriate summary report before the competent court.
What allegations is the CBI examining?
According to reporting on the FIR, the CBI is examining not only the circumstances surrounding Salian's death but also allegations concerning how the earlier investigation was conducted.
The FIR calls for examination of whether evidence or official records were suppressed, destroyed or fabricated; whether a false account of the death was propagated; and whether police machinery or other public resources were misused to shield anyone.
It also seeks examination of the roles of people connected with the building and officials involved in the autopsy and forensic processes.
These are investigative questions rather than established conclusions.
Satish Salian has separately made serious allegations concerning his daughter's death and has sought investigation into several individuals, including Thackeray. Thackeray categorically rejects any connection with Salian.
The CBI's task is now to test such competing claims against evidence rather than political statements or media speculation.
₹500-crore notice adds another legal front
The dispute escalated further on September 17.
Satish Salian sent a ₹500-crore defamation notice to Aaditya Thackeray and former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, demanding an apology, retraction and damages. The notice reportedly gives them seven days to comply.
According to the notice as reported by The Indian Express, Satish Salian objected to statements questioning his motives for seeking a fresh investigation. The notice also refers to submissions made on Thackeray's behalf during the High Court proceedings suggesting that Salian was being used to harass him.
A legal notice is a demand made by one party; it is not a judicial determination that defamation occurred or that the ₹500-crore amount is payable.
The notice therefore creates a separate legal dispute from the CBI's criminal investigation.
Three different things are now being mixed together
Much of the public debate around the case risks collapsing three distinct questions into one.
The first is the cause and circumstances of Disha Salian's death. Mumbai Police previously maintained that their investigation indicated suicide, while her father disputes that conclusion. The CBI has now been directed to investigate the circumstances afresh.
The second concerns possible failures or wrongdoing in the earlier investigation. The Bombay High Court identified significant shortcomings in how the matter was handled, which was a major reason for transferring the investigation to the CBI.
The third concerns specific individuals mentioned in allegations, including Aaditya Thackeray. The High Court has deliberately left those questions to investigators and specifically instructed that nobody should be treated as an accused without sufficient material.
Keeping those three questions separate is essential for accurate reporting.
What happens now
The CBI investigation is at an early stage following the High Court's order and the registration of the new FIR.
Investigators can examine witnesses, forensic and documentary material, earlier police records and the allegations made by Satish Salian. Only after that process progresses will it become clearer whether investigators believe evidence supports criminal allegations against any specific individual.
For Aaditya Thackeray, his public position is now unambiguous: he says he never knew or met Salian, denies any connection to her death and wants the official investigation to proceed impartially.
For Satish Salian, the CBI investigation represents the fresh inquiry he sought through the courts, while his ₹500-crore notice has opened a separate dispute over statements concerning his motives.
And for the CBI, the central challenge is considerably broader than determining whether widely circulated claims are true or false. It must reconstruct events from more than six years ago while examining both the circumstances of Salian's death and allegations concerning the handling of the original investigation.
Until that evidence is gathered and judicially tested, the most important distinction remains the one embedded in the High Court's own order: investigation is not guilt, and a person whose role is being examined should not automatically be treated as an accused.
