Highlights:
The Mumbai High Court, under Justice Saran Kotwal, demonstrates fearlessness and accountability through its aggressive questioning of government lawyer Shailendra Nagarkar and CBI lawyers.
The court’s firm stance against the government is evident in its rejection of attempts to file a reply, despite the Supreme Court’s earlier rejection.
The court has thoroughly studied the case and made up its mind on how to proceed, noting the “shamelessness” of Mumbai Police in not registering an FIR.
Shailendra Nagarkar faces potential 7-year imprisonment under IPC sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, and 200 for allegedly filing a false affidavit.
The Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association has filed an application to cancel Nagarkar’s MLA status and investigate his alleged “Aghori puja” involving blood from a skull.
The court has ordered the Chief Secretary to take action against Nagarkar and the government.
The court has directed the government to take custody of Aditya Thackeray, accused of filing a false affidavit, and to take the record of his statement.
Ashutosh Pathak:
Hello and welcome to India Debate. Let us express our gratitude to God. Greetings to all. There is a fight going on between you and us, on the side of honesty, and gradually we are achieving success. All the concerns we had expressed about what would happen in court have come true. How did it happen? Who said what? What did the honorable judge say? What did our legal warriors say? And what did the leaders of lies say? Our advocate Nilesh Ojha is joining us live from Mumbai. A warm welcome to advocate Nilesh Ojha. The whole country is waiting. God’s infinite mercy is at work. The media is silent, quiet, and political parties are silent too. The government is also silent. But everything we said has happened. How did the case start? Please explain in detail to our viewers.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
Advocate Nilesh Ojha: Look, today the court gave a date. Last time, Tanveer Nizam said the court would hear the matter on the 2nd or 3rd. Today, the matter was taken up one day earlier, on the 1st, though it was originally listed for the 2nd in the high court’s board. Yes, yes. And the matter was on the high court’s board, so it came up immediately within an hour after the court session started—within an hour, the matter was taken up. Yes, about one to one and a half hours. Very good. So the matter came up. This bench is an expert bench in criminal matters. The judge here is one of the top criminal judges. The police are quite afraid of him because he knows everything about their work. When police try to do something under Section 400 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he checks their case diaries meticulously. They have to answer to him very carefully. So when the matter came up today, the CBI lawyers were also present. Yes, yes, the CBI lawyers arrived. They understood the situation clearly. Also, two important people were missing today: Shailendra Nagarkar, against whom we have filed prosecution, was absent. He was not present on the ground. He is currently seeking an adjournment through his government lawyer, requesting more time. Yes, they asked for time. And Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer also appeared, saying they had filed an intervention. So I told the court that they filed an intervention on June 14th but did not serve me a copy, which is mandatory. The High Court rules require them to serve a copy, but they didn’t. We know what is what, where the copy was received from. When I asked them about the copy at their office, they lied about receiving it. The lie was exposed. So I said, even if you are right, let them argue. I am ready to argue now. Both Aditya Thackeray and his lawyer are accused of contempt and perjury. I will argue and point out to the court how they are guilty. Then the APP (Additional Public Prosecutor) came, saying they had filed a reply affidavit. I said, please read the April 30th order of Justice Saran Kotwal. The court issued an order. I said, there are accused people of police commissioner rank here. Also, a former Home Minister and a former Chief Minister are accused. After listening to this, the APP was not the main PP at that time. Justice Saran Kotwal said an affidavit from the Chief Secretary will come. The court instructed Respondent No. 1 accordingly. The judge said, yes, the APP’s order is correct, so the Chief Secretary was asked to file a reply. Did the Chief Secretary file it? No, he did not. The court said this is non-compliance of the High Court order. Then, when asked about Shailendra Nagarkar, I said he is four ranks below the Commissioner and is conducting an inquiry against his seniors. The court asked how his affidavit was filed when he is not even a party to the case. I said it’s okay. Then the court asked if the Chief Secretary authorized Nagarkar to file the reply. They said no. The court got angry. The court then asked me why other parties like Rajiv Jain and Chimaji were named specifically. I said they have committed criminal conduct, so they are accused parties named by name in their capacity as SIT members, not personally. The court said okay, no problem. Then the court started reading the prayer (petition) for about two to three minutes without interruption. The judge’s expression showed slight anger, but he controlled himself. Then the court asked the APP if they were ready to argue, saying this is the final hearing. Today, the court will decide who will go to jail and who will not. The court understood their 400 BC (criminal) case. The APP said no, no, they need time. The court asked how much time they wanted. They said three weeks. The court said no, two weeks will be given. Complete all formalities and instructions and come back. Nagarkar, whether he is Chief Secretary or not, has to prepare everything. After two weeks, the final hearing will take place. The APP requested time; the court granted two weeks. Meanwhile, Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer stated he had filed an intervention. Also, the court asked who Shailendra Nagarkar is. They said he is not a party, but his affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra, who is Respondent No. 1. The court read out the list of respondents: No. 2 is Additional Chief Secretary; No. 3 is Police Commissioner; No. 4 is Rajiv Jain, Additional Commissioner and head of SIT; No. 5 is Ajay Bansal, SIT member; No. 6 is Chimaji Aw; No. 7 is the CBI lawyer; No. 8 is the Union of India, Home Ministry; and No. 9 is Sameer Wankhede. The court said Nagarkar is not a party and had filed a reply without authorization. This is the Mumbai High Court order by Justice Saran, a division bench.
Ashutosh Pathak:
This is the Mumbai High Court order by Justice Saran, a division bench.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
Today, several matters were heard. After two weeks, the next hearings will be on multiple cases. First, there is a petition and intervention relating to prosecution against the media and Shailendra Nagarkar for leaking false news to defame the father of a girl. This involves cases worth two hundred billion rupees separately. Nagarkar faces three or four other cases as well. There are also cases involving Marathi reporters and others from Mid-Day. They sought prosecution content to name Aditya Thackeray as accused under Section 120B for allegedly helping the girl’s father, Bhagwat. Then there is affidavit number 146 of Shailendra Nagarkar. On June 26, 2025, we filed an FIR 133010 alleging Nagarkar submitted a false affidavit and disrespected the court order. The Supreme Court has held that investigation cannot proceed without registering an FIR, but Nagarkar insists on closing the case without FIR. This is prosecution under Section 301 against Nagarkar. Then there is an intervention application by Aditya Thackeray seeking to participate. The prosecution against Aditya Thackeray and his lawyer is under various sections; he does not hide his MLA status. Then, they claim the CBI cleared him, Bihar police gave him a clean chit, and the Supreme Court took cognizance. Which Taliban or Pakistan Supreme Court is this? Despite that, they submitted affidavits with distortions. So, prosecution is against them too.
Today, a hearing took place on this issue. I told the court I was ready for the hearing, but the court said to wait for two weeks as Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer had requested time. Actually, the court was not listening to Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer today. I am telling you plainly, he was ignored. The court said to ignore him and focus on the government lawyer’s request for time. I say this because the judge knows this law very well, having dealt with similar matters before. The Supreme Court judgment states that when an FIR is registered against an accused, the accused is not allowed to be heard because who would admit guilt? That is why the honorable judge is not paying attention to whether the intervention was filed by the accused. Who would admit, “I am guilty”? The investigation must proceed according to procedure.
To clarify, Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of Mamata Banerjee, filed a petition in the same way, but the High Court imposed a cost of 25 to 50 lakh rupees, saying he wasted the court’s time and violated the law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, saying you have the right to speak in between but not to waste time.
This is a complaint of murder. But they twisted it around and wrote the same old Manohar stories. Such arguments have already been rejected by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court. Still, he keeps writing them. I had said last time on your channel—do you know what Nagarkar says? That the Supreme Court doesn’t understand anything, and its orders are not binding on us because we are working for the accused. So, the Supreme Court doesn’t apply to us, nor does the High Court. The Constitution of India doesn’t apply to us; instead, we follow Taliban law.
If that’s the case, then why did you flee today? Why didn’t you appear in court? Today, you would have come to know how things really are. So, what explanation do they have? Nilesh ji, I asked him, “Brother, you are neither a party to this case nor a respondent. And this is a High Court order specifying who must file replies. There are eight or ten people involved, but only one was told to file a reply; no one else can file one. And if anyone was authorized, they should have done it—but they didn’t. The court said no one else, just the Chief Secretary. No one else was told to file anything. So, how did you get involved, brother? Like an uninvited guest at a wedding, Abdullah Deewana. Okay, that’s another matter.
Alright, you acted so daringly, saying the Supreme Court doesn’t apply to you, you don’t understand the Supreme Court, it doesn’t apply to you. Then why did you run away today? If you had appeared in court today, you would have found out how the High Court deals with corrupt police officers—how it sends them to jail. That knowledge would have come to light.
Is this a government tactic? Because they couldn’t file the reply within 4 or 5 days. So, can we assume the government deliberately delayed? What does Nilesh say? He pushed Shailendra Nagarkar forward, telling him to “go hang yourself,” take some scolding, and then we’ll get 10 more days and proceed. But this is disrespect to the court. In my opinion, strong action should be taken against Nagarkar and also against the government. The Chief Secretary should also be held accountable. Yes.
Yes, all this will go on. What can I say? This will continue. But the most important thing right now—our accused has just appeared in court. First, take a hearing on his custody. All this will go on. Now, when you said they filed a fake and false affidavit, what did Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer say? The court didn’t even listen to him. You said the court didn’t hear them at all. There was no response, no answer—total silence. So, filing a false affidavit means directly that the rest—well, brother, whether you are guilty or not is a matter for trial. But right now, you have filed a false affidavit, and for that, you will have to go to jail.
The case carries a punishment of seven years. The charges include IPC sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, and 200, and each section carries sentences of seven years, three years, etc., separately. Plus, under the Contempt of Court Act, sections 2(c) and 12 apply, which carry a direct six-month jail term for cheating the court.
No, we didn’t say that. We filed an application today. The board isn’t present. We filed an affidavit. According to case law, in such cases, custody must be taken. Also, prosecution should be initiated against the lawyer, and the Bar Council should be asked to suspend his practice. If he is a senior counsel, his senior counsel status and gown should be withdrawn. This is our prayer, brother, it’s on record.
Ashutosh Pathak:
Now, if he says, “Sir, it was a mistake. Instead of 35, we wrote 28,” and claims the Supreme Court has taken cognizance, and that Bihar Police and CBI have given us a clean chit, and it was a clerical error—well, it’s the same.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
Do you understand? The Supreme Court has already given a judgment on this. This is not the first time. You keep trying this nonsense. Do you know the Supreme Court’s response? They say, “Your adventure is converted into misadventure.” You say, “It was a mistake, sorry,” but that’s not permissible once you have signed an affidavit.
If the client signs and the lawyer countersigns, then both are equally liable in the case. Moreover, if a designated senior counsel argues, they too have the responsibility to verify everything properly. Something like this cannot just be presented in court without proper verification. This is not acceptable. Since 1927, case law has been clear on this. There was a case in 1927 where a lawyer had vouched for a client, and the full bench of the Allahabad High Court sentenced both the lawyer and the client to a combined total of 10 years—five years each. They appealed to the High Court full bench, but the court upheld the sentence and suspended the lawyer. This same case law from 1926-27 was reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2024 in the Kusha Duruka case. There are many such precedents, so don’t worry about them for now.
I understand you’re very worried that your young 28-year-old child is going to jail. That’s natural.
Ashutosh Pathak:
But then what good will it do if you say in court, “My Lord, they performed Aghori rituals. Saraswati came to their soul and said that since you performed Aghori worship, this will be the consequence.” Now you’ve brought some other letter or document. Hey, this file is in court. There are 260 pages of it, including detailed proof of the Aghori worship. I can send you a PDF copy; everything is documented. There’s news from Maharashtra Times saying that Aghori worship is prohibited. Wait a minute—that will be relevant too. Then there will be a case against them for that as well.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
Listen, they need to explain why they wrote “28” on the advice of the tantrik (occult practitioner). Why else did they write it? And why was the MLA status hidden? There are two reasons for hiding the MLA status. One is because Supreme Court guidelines apply; if it is revealed, the case will proceed in a fast-track court and be decided within a time-bound manner. To avoid this, the status was hidden. The other reason was on the tantrik’s advice.
The Home Minister of Maharashtra, Yogesh Kadam, whose father Ramdas Kadam made a statement published in Maharashtra Times and Prahaar, said that the tantrik came and performed worship for five days at Matoshi. Five days later, the worship was performed for two days at his farmhouse in Khopoli-Karjat area. I was actually going to mention this in court today but didn’t get the chance. This affidavit came with turmeric and vermillion marks on it. Check if there are any bloodstains on it. This affidavit in court was probably brought directly after the tantrik’s worship. You can’t call it a legal worship; it’s worship involving the blood of a skull. That’s the kind of worship it was. Neither Uddhav Thackeray nor Aditya Thackeray has ever denied this.
Also, I sent you a letter yesterday from the Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The letter states that this person hid his MLA status and claimed to be a social worker and businessman in the affidavit. Since there are allegations of Aghori worship, and since Maharashtra law applies, we have asked the Speaker to conduct an inquiry and cancel his MLA status immediately. He is ashamed to call himself an MLA, so remove him from the MLA list under this provision. Also, investigate the Aghori worship allegations. If found true, register a new FIR against him. The petition has already been submitted to the Speaker.
Ashutosh Pathak:
That should be enough for today. Before we end, just tell me—will Shailendra Nagarkar come next time or go to jail? What excuse does he have? He says he’s neither here nor there. How did he become involved in someone else’s matter? Who told him to file the case? Who deputed Nagarkar for the inquiry?
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
Listen to some things I won’t tell you now; watch what happens on the next date.
Neither Mr. Nagarkar nor the accused Aditya Thackeray will understand. On the next date, one of my good friends who is an expert in law and involved in gang murder cases will also come to support. Let’s see. It’s not right to say much now; let it unfold.
Ashutosh Pathak:
Is it possible that an FIR will be registered before the next date? Yes, it is possible because the court’s stance today has made the government realize the seriousness of the matter. The government might have been waiting for this moment. It’s possible Nagarkar will get a warning, and if that fire spreads, we might get burned. So it’s better to douse the flames now.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
You yourself said last time on your show that the affidavit was made to anger the High Court and get rid of Aditya.
Ashutosh Pathak:
That means they deliberately prepared the affidavit to provoke the court’s anger. The first question the court asked was: “Who is Nagarkar? Where is the Chief Secretary?”
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
The court said, “Alright, keep everyone aside, you put Nagarkar aside, keep the Chief Secretary aside. Are you prepared to argue now? Have you told the APP?” The court understood the situation. It said, “I am ready to hear immediately.”
Ashutosh Pathak:
This means the court has thoroughly studied the entire case file and formed an opinion on how theft, fraud, lies, and cheating are going on, and how shameless the Mumbai police have been for not registering an FIR despite the uproar.
Advocate Nilesh Ojha:
One joke—sometimes it feels like God is orchestrating all this. What did Aditya Thackeray’s lawyer say in court today? That no complaint was made to the police; they went straight to the High Court to get an FIR registered. I said, “Okay, record their statement or have them file an affidavit.” The whole media is covering it; the lawyers’ team is going to the commissioner with complaints and bringing receipts, but they don’t see this. It’s misleading the court.
But today, the court was pressing the government, so I didn’t say much more. I argued, “Take their statements.” You can check my petition’s page number; this is a copy of the FIR complaint filed to register the FIR. This is a false statement. Take them into custody. I was going to say more but later thought, let the court reprimand the government today; that’s enough. The next date is their turn.
Ashutosh Pathak:
Alright, thank you very much, Nilesh Ojha. We’ll talk again tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Also read:
Latest News: