Disha Salian Case: CBI Statement, Court Safeguards and Aaditya Thackeray’s Denial

Aaditya Thackeray’s name has returned to news coverage following reports that Disha Salian’s father, Satish Salian, recorded a statement before the CBI on September 11. Jansatta reported that Satish said he had named several people, including Thackeray, while setting out his account. The report also said the CBI had not officially commented on that development at publication.

That is a report of what a complainant says he told investigators. It does not establish wrongdoing by the people named. Thackeray has denied involvement in Salian’s death.

What the court actually ordered

The Bombay High Court’s written judgment of September 2, in Satish Salian v. State of Maharashtra, directs the appointment of an experienced senior CBI officer. The officer is to record the petitioner’s statement, register an FIR and examine the circumstances of Salian’s death.

The order contains an essential safeguard: a person is not to be treated as an accused unless the investigating officer finds sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion in the material collected. The judges also state that their observations are not findings against any particular individual. These qualifications are central to understanding the investigation and should remain attached to accounts of it.

Thackeray’s response

In comments reported by AajTak on September 3, Thackeray rejected the allegations and said he had no connection with the case. He also described the accusations as part of a political effort to damage his reputation. That is his stated position, and it forms part of the record alongside the complainant’s account.

The investigation remains the key next step

The court allows the CBI to proceed according to the evidence, including filing an appropriate report if an offence is established or a closure summary if none is made out. In the latter situation, the petitioner retains the ability to challenge that report.

For readers following updates on September 12, 2026, the distinction is straightforward: a reported statement, a court direction and a conclusion about responsibility are different things. This article reports the first two and makes no finding of guilt.