The reopening of the Disha Salian death case may not, by itself, spell the “end of the road” for Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray. But politically and legally, it certainly opens a new and potentially uncomfortable chapter for the Thackeray family.
The Bombay High Court’s decision to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and conduct a comprehensive investigation into Salian’s 2020 death is significant—not because the court has found anyone guilty, but precisely because it has found serious gaps and discrepancies in the earlier inquiry warranting a fresh investigation. The court observed that the previous police inquiry was inadequate and “raises more questions than it answers”.
That distinction is crucial.
The High Court has made it clear that no individual should be treated as an accused merely on the basis of allegations, unless sufficient material emerges during the investigation to raise reasonable suspicion of an offence. In other words, Aaditya Thackeray faces no criminal finding or declaration of guilt from the court at this stage. The CBI probe is an investigation into facts and circumstances, not a judicial verdict against him.
Yet politically, that legal safeguard does not make the controversy disappear.
Disha Salian, a celebrity manager who had briefly worked with actor Sushant Singh Rajput, died on June 8, 2020, just days before Rajput’s death. The proximity of the two deaths generated enormous public speculation and a series of political allegations over the years. Aaditya Thackeray’s name repeatedly figured in that political controversy. But allegations remain allegations, and they cannot be converted into guilt merely through repetition.
What has changed now is the judicial context.
Salian’s father, Satish Salian, approached the Bombay High Court seeking a fresh investigation into the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death. The court has now directed the CBI to register an FIR, record his statement and investigate all aspects of the case. It has also directed the investigating agency to obtain the relevant records and conduct the probe independently and in accordance with law.
The court’s observations about the original investigation are particularly significant. It questioned why the matter remained under an accidental-death inquiry for years without an FIR and flagged, among other things, the unexplained delay in conducting the spot panchnama. According to the court, the police had reached the building shortly after the incident, but the panchnama was conducted more than nine hours later. The court said such circumstances raised reasonable questions about the manner in which the initial inquiry was conducted.
That makes it difficult to dismiss the entire controversy simply as political propaganda.
At the same time, the court’s caution about individual culpability must not be overlooked.
Following the verdict, Aaditya Thackeray dismissed the allegations and questioned why he should respond to what he described as attempts to defame him.
But politically, there is another way of looking at it.
If the investigation ultimately establishes that there is no evidence against him, an independent investigation should provide precisely the opportunity for that conclusion to emerge. The more politically prudent response would therefore be simple: let the CBI investigate, let the evidence speak and let the law take its course.
That would also be the most effective answer to the allegations.
Instead, any attempt to reduce the latest development entirely to political vendetta risks appearing to question the very process that could conclusively settle the controversy.
To be fair, the law demands that the CBI establish facts rather than satisfy political constituencies. If its investigation does not disclose criminality, it can place an appropriate report before the competent court. Conversely, if credible evidence of an offence emerges, those responsible must face the consequences in accordance with law.
Therefore, it would be irresponsible to pronounce Aaditya Thackeray guilty today merely because his name has figured in allegations. But it would be equally irresponsible to dismiss the matter as politically motivated when the Bombay High Court itself has found sufficient shortcomings in the earlier inquiry to justify a fresh investigation.
For the Thackerays, that is the real political problem.
The Disha Salian controversy is no longer merely an allegation traded between the BJP and Shiv Sena (UBT). It has now entered a fresh investigative process following a judicial order. The spotlight will inevitably shift from political rhetoric to evidence, forensic material, witness statements, digital records, timelines and the circumstances surrounding Salian’s death.
And that is precisely why the Thackerays may have reason to be uncomfortable—not because the court has convicted anyone, but because questions that have remained politically combustible for six years are now going to be tested against evidence.
The CBI investigation could ultimately vindicate Aaditya Thackeray by finding no criminality. Equally, if the evidence points towards an offence, it could dramatically alter the political narrative surrounding the case.
Either way, the real test begins now.
The truth must be allowed to emerge from evidence—not from political accusations, counter-accusations or competing narratives.
