A Man Is Known by the Company He Keeps”: GenZ Lawyers Association Questions CJP’s Saurav Das and Ratna Singh; Seeks Answers Over Meeting With Aditya Thackeray After Taking a Public Oath on the Constitution Proclaiming Political Neutrality
We Are Not Members of the BJP; We Ourselves Supported the Demand for Dharmendra Pradhan’s Resignation” — We Supported the Jantar Mantar Protest, but Not Violence, Abusive Language, Anti-National Slogans or Attacks on Police: GZLA
GZLA’s Sharp Question: “If Vijeta Dahiya Could Be Removed as Spokesperson for Eating a Burger, Why Should There Be a Different Standard for CJP Leaders Saurav Das and Ratna Singh for Visiting the Residence of Aditya Thackeray, Who Faces Several Grave Allegations Including Gang Rape, Murder and Drug Trafficking?”
GZLA also condemned Saurav Das for selective criticism and apparent double standards in adopting different positions in the cases of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman concerning the hearing of matters allegedly connected with their respective family members.
The letter has been sent by Adv. Ayush Tiwari, Convenor of the GenZ Lawyers Association (GZLA).
Saurav Das Had Taken an Oath on the Constitution Proclaiming Political Independence; GZLA Alleges His Subsequent Conduct Was Contrary to That Public Oath and Says He Must Now Answer
Serious Objection Raised Over Meeting Held Amid Crucial Bombay High Court Proceedings in the Disha Salian Case; Public Answers Sought
According to GZLA, considering the circumstances and the extremely significant timing of the meeting, a natural question may arise in the mind of any fair-minded person as to whether the CJP leadership was called at this crucial juncture for the purpose of obtaining or extending some form of political or public support, backing or coordination, or whether CJP or any of its office-bearers has any form of sponsorship, connection, understanding or coordination with any alleged drug mafia or persons connected with it.
The mere fact of a meeting does not by itself establish any such connection. However, according to GZLA, the responsibility now lies upon the CJP leadership to address, rather than ignore, the serious questions and apprehensions arising in the minds of the general public, youth and its own supporters, and to dispel them through a clear, credible and transparent public explanation—particularly when CJP itself has publicly proclaimed its commitment to political neutrality and constitutional values.
The GenZ Lawyers Association (GZLA) has addressed a detailed letter to Saurav Das, Co-Convenor of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), and Ratna Singh, its Legal Affairs Lead, strongly objecting to their meeting with Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray at his residence. The Association has specifically sought an explanation regarding what it describes as an apparent contradiction between Saurav Das’s public declaration of CJP’s complete political independence, made while placing his hand upon the Constitution, and the subsequent meeting.
The letter begins with the well-known maxim:
“A man is known by the company he keeps, the language he speaks, and the company he avoids.”
— A well-known maxim often attributed to Abraham Lincoln
GZLA states that the company a public figure chooses to keep—and equally, the persons or causes from whom he consciously maintains distance—may often convey a message more powerful than his public declarations. According to the Association, this principle assumes even greater significance where persons claim to lead a nationwide youth movement, profess allegiance to the Constitution of India, and publicly proclaim complete independence from political parties and political influence.
GZLA Says It Supported the Jantar Mantar Movement, Not the Violence
The letter clarifies that GZLA and the Indian Bar Association supported the legitimate and constitutional demands of peaceful protesters at Jantar Mantar and their democratic right to protest. At the same time, they also demanded action in accordance with law against those involved in violence, attacks upon police personnel, arson, vandalism and destruction of public property.
The Association states that its objection was not to withdrawal of cases against peaceful protesters, but to any indiscriminate withdrawal of cases against persons involved in violence. Written representations were also addressed to the Chief Justice of India in this regard.
According to the letter, connected matters subsequently reached the Supreme Court and appropriate relief was granted. GZLA describes this as consistent with its position throughout: protect the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters while ensuring legal action against those involved in violence.
Saurav Das Took an Oath on the Constitution Proclaiming Political Independence; GZLA Alleges Subsequent Conduct Was Contrary to That Oath
The letter specifically refers to a video dated 13 July 2026. According to GZLA, during an interview/video with journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Saurav Das placed his hand upon a copy of the Constitution and publicly declared CJP’s political independence.
His statement is quoted in the letter as:
“I, Saurav Das, taking an oath on the Constitution of India, declare that the Cockroach Movement is completely independent…”
According to GZLA, the substance of the declaration was that the movement was completely independent; had no direct or indirect connection with any political party, organisation or ideology; and owed allegiance solely to the Constitution of India, democracy and the youth of the country.
“We Are Not BJP Members; We Ourselves Supported the Demand for Dharmendra Pradhan’s Resignation”
Addressing any possible suggestion of political partisanship, GZLA has categorically stated that its office-bearers are neither members of the BJP nor associated with the BJP. The Association points out that it supported CJP’s legitimate demands and also supported the demand for the resignation of the then Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan.
Nevertheless, the Association has questioned why, if CJP is completely politically neutral, similarly aggressive, sustained and nationwide campaigns were not witnessed over paper leaks, examination irregularities and student grievances in non-BJP-ruled States such as Karnataka, Jharkhand, Punjab and Kerala.
The letter further states that support for the protesting students in Jharkhand appeared to have been extended belatedly, only after continuous pressure from various sections and the media. According to GZLA, these circumstances raise questions regarding the consistency between the political neutrality publicly proclaimed by the movement and its actual conduct.
The Most Serious Question: Why Visit Aditya Thackeray’s Residence When He Faces Several Grave Allegations Including Gang Rape, Murder and Drug Trafficking?
GZLA states that its objection is not confined merely to meeting a political leader. According to the Association, the much more serious questions concern the identity of the person met, why the meeting took place at his private residence, its timing, and the nature of the grave allegations and judicial proceedings concerning him at that time.
The letter specifically states that Satish Salian, father of Disha Salian, has levelled serious allegations against Aditya Thackeray and others in connection with his daughter’s death, and that issues arising from those allegations are presently under consideration before the Bombay High Court.
According to GZLA, Satish Salian has made grave allegations including gang rape and murder, while the letter also refers to other extremely serious allegations against Aditya Thackeray, including drug trafficking, perjury, forgery, cannibalism and child trafficking. The available draft notes that allegations attributed to Mursalin Sheikh and Rashid Khan Pathan would require their respective complaints/affidavits as separate documentary support.
According to the letter, there is no speculation regarding whether the meeting itself took place because Aditya Thackeray publicly acknowledged his meeting with Saurav Das and Ratna Singh on social media and stated that highlights of the CJP protest were discussed.
GZLA therefore maintains that the question is not merely whether the meeting occurred, but why such a meeting took place under these sensitive circumstances, what its purpose was, and what subjects were discussed.
GZLA has clarified that whether meeting a politician, by itself, constitutes a violation of the public oath of political independence is something Saurav Das must explain. However, according to the Association, the substantially more serious question is why senior CJP functionaries visited the private residence of a person whom Disha Salian’s father has named in his complaint containing allegations concerning the alleged gang rape and murder of his daughter, while proceedings concerning those very issues are pending before the Bombay High Court.
GZLA further states that the timing of the meeting makes the controversy substantially more serious. According to the letter, significant developments took place before the Bombay High Court on 3 August 2026, following which the matter was listed for an important hearing on 24 August 2026 at 3:00 PM. The Association argues that a meeting during such a crucial intervening period cannot simply be brushed aside as a “casual” or “private meeting”; the CJP leadership must explain its timing, purpose, political implications and relevance in the context of the pending judicial proceedings.
Letter Refers to August 3 High Court Proceedings — “What Stopped You From Registering an FIR?”
GZLA has specifically referred to the important hearing before the Bombay High Court on 3 August 2026. According to the letter, the High Court questioned the Mumbai Police regarding the failure to register an FIR on the complaint made by Disha Salian’s father.
The letter refers to reports by various media and legal portals, including Young Advocates Council, Dainik Bhaskar and LiveLaw.
It quotes the significant title of the LiveLaw report:
“‘What Stops You From Registering FIR When Someone Raises Suspicion?’ Bombay High Court To Mumbai Police In Disha Salian Death Case”
In substance: “When a person raises suspicion through a complaint, what stopped you from registering an FIR?”
According to the letter, other media reports concerning the hearing also referred to questions raised by the High Court regarding the investigation into Disha Salian’s death and the failure to register an FIR on her father’s complaint.
The Association states that Satish Salian has levelled serious allegations against Aditya Thackeray and others and sought registration of an FIR and an independent investigation, and that the related issues are presently before the Bombay High Court. Against this background, the publicly acknowledged meeting of CJP leaders at Aditya Thackeray’s private residence, immediately after significant developments before the High Court and at a sensitive stage of the proceedings, raises serious questions concerning neutrality, propriety, consistency and public perception.
GZLA Cites Alleged Concealment of MLA Status and Evidence Relating to the Allegedly False Affidavit; Raises Serious Questions About Aditya Thackeray’s Bona Fides and Says Dishonesty and Mala Fides Are Prima Facie Apparent From the Record
The letter extensively refers to the pending application challenging the truthfulness of the affidavit filed by Aditya Thackeray before the Bombay High Court in the Disha Salian matter. The Association highlights three principal issues:
First — Describing himself merely as a “Businessman” despite being an MLA: According to the letter, although Aditya Thackeray was a sitting MLA, he described his occupation in the affidavit as “Businessman” without disclosing his status as an elected MLA. The Applicant alleges that this material fact was deliberately concealed to avoid the expeditious/fast-track hearing procedure applicable to criminal cases concerning MPs and MLAs pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court.
Second — Allegedly false claim of a CBI “clean chit”: The letter states that Aditya Thackeray claimed in his affidavit that the CBI had given him a clean chit in the Disha Salian case. In contrast, according to the written CBI clarification relied upon by the Applicant, the agency never investigated the Disha Salian case and did not give a clean chit to Aditya Thackeray or anyone else.
Third — Attempting to intervene in the very case in which he has been named as an accused: GZLA has also seriously objected to Aditya Thackeray’s attempt to intervene in the same writ petition in which Disha Salian’s father seeks registration of an FIR and transfer of the investigation to the CBI and in which he has named Aditya Thackeray as an accused.
The letter refers to judicial precedents including Soumen Nandy v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1191 and also refers to exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh imposed in proceedings concerning Abhishek Banerjee.
According to GZLA, when the alleged concealment of MLA status, the allegedly false statement concerning a CBI clean chit, and the attempt to intervene in proceedings seeking an investigation despite being named as an accused are considered cumulatively, they raise extremely serious questions regarding the affidavit’s bona fides, intention and truthfulness.
The letter further emphasises that knowingly giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings may attract the serious offences relating to perjury/false evidence under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC. Section 193 provides for imprisonment extending up to seven years for intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding. The letter further states that courts have treated false evidence, false affidavits and attempts to mislead courts as extremely serious conduct striking at the very foundation of the administration of justice.
According to GZLA, these circumstances give rise to an even more serious question for the CJP leadership: when the grave allegations concerning Aditya Thackeray’s conduct before the Court and his affidavit are claimed to have been prima facie established by the documentary material available on record, with further judicial proceedings on those issues still pending, what was the real purpose behind senior CJP functionaries visiting his private residence at such an extremely sensitive and crucial time?
GZLA also condemned Saurav Das for selective criticism and apparent double standards in adopting different positions in the cases of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman concerning the hearing of matters allegedly connected with their respective family members.
former CJP spokesperson Vijeta Dahiya.
According to GZLA, CJP removed Vijeta Dahiya from the position of spokesperson after a video emerged showing him at a burger outlet while the protest was underway. The Association asks that if absence from the protest and presence at a burger outlet were considered serious enough to warrant removal, why should senior CJP functionaries not be required to provide an even clearer and more transparent explanation for visiting the private residence of a politically influential person against whom the extremely grave allegations described in the letter have been made.
GZLA has particularly objected to the timing of the meeting. According to the letter, significant developments took place before the Bombay High Court on 3 August 2026, and the matter was thereafter fixed for an important hearing on 24 August 2026 at 3:00 PM. The Association therefore describes the meeting at Aditya Thackeray’s residence during this intervening period as serious from the standpoint of neutrality, propriety and timing.
The Association states in emphatic terms:
“Equality, accountability and justice must begin within the movement itself.”
GZLA argues that there cannot be one standard for Vijeta Dahiya and another, more convenient standard for the senior leadership of CJP. If a movement demands accountability from Governments and institutions, it must apply the same standards to its own leadership.
Could Such a Meeting Affect Pending Judicial Proceedings?
The letter raises another sensitive aspect. According to GZLA, the timing, nature and public projection of the meeting may create an impression in the minds of the complainant, witnesses and general public that persons claiming to lead an independent nationwide movement are demonstrating proximity or support towards a person named in a pending matter.
The Association, however, states the possible legal consequences conditionally. It says that if any conduct is intended to influence, intimidate, discourage or place pressure upon a complainant or witness; prejudice pending judicial proceedings; interfere with a fair investigation; obstruct the discovery of truth; or otherwise interfere with the due administration of justice, serious legal consequences may arise under the applicable criminal law and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, depending upon the facts and intention established.
In support, the letter refers to Nilesh Navalakha & Ors. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56; Bhupinder Singh Patel v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 711; and Shyni Varghese v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), 2008 SCC OnLine Del 204.
Five Direct Questions GZLA Has Put to Saurav Das and Ratna Singh
GenZ Lawyers Association has ultimately called upon the CJP leadership to publicly clarify its position on five specific issues:
What was the actual purpose and complete circumstances of the meeting with Aditya Thackeray?
Was there any discussion concerning political support, cooperation, strategy, funding, understanding or future coordination relating to CJP or its movement?
How is this meeting consistent with the public oath taken on the Constitution proclaiming the movement’s complete political independence?
Before attending the meeting, were Saurav Das and Ratna Singh aware of the serious allegations made by Satish Salian and the proceedings pending before the Bombay High Court?
Will CJP apply to its senior leadership the same standards of accountability that it applied while removing Vijeta Dahiya?
“An Oath on the Constitution Cannot Be Only for Demanding Accountability From Others”
In conclusion, GZLA has called upon Saurav Das and Ratna Singh to maintain complete transparency, political neutrality and consistency with the constitutional principles publicly professed by them, and to refrain from any act or omission capable of creating an impression of political alignment, preferential treatment, selective accountability or interference in matters pending before constitutional courts.
The Association states that the credibility of any movement claiming to represent the youth and the Constitution cannot be judged merely by how forcefully it demands accountability from others. It must equally be judged by whether it is willing to subject its own leaders to the same standards of transparency, equality and accountability.
In its concluding words, GZLA expresses the hope that “good conscience, constitutional values and a commitment to truth and justice shall prevail”, and that the CJP leadership will take appropriate steps to dispel the serious apprehensions arising from these circumstances.
The letter bears the name of Adv. Ayush Tiwari, Convenor, GenZ Lawyers Association.