Supreme Court Directs Hate Speech Plea Against Raj Thackeray to Bombay High Court, Reinforces Jurisdictional Hierarchy

New Delhi - In a notable decision reaffirming the principle of judicial hierarchy and the availability of alternative remedies, the Supreme Court of India on August 4, 2025, declined to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition sought an independent investigation and other reliefs against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) President Raj Thackeray for alleged hate speech that purportedly incited violence against Hindi-speaking residents in Mumbai.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, directed the petitioner to first approach the jurisdictional High Court, in this case, the Bombay High Court. While refusing to delve into the merits of the case, the Court’s stance serves as a crucial reminder to the legal fraternity about the appropriate forum for seeking redressal, particularly when parallel and efficacious remedies exist under Article 226.

The case, Sunil Shukla vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 000316 / 2025], was brought forth by Sunil Shukla, the National President of the Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena, a political party advocating for the rights of North Indian residents in Maharashtra.

---

The Petitioner's Allegations and Prayers

The writ petition presented a series of grave allegations stemming from a speech delivered by Raj Thackeray during a Gudi Padwa rally. The petitioner claimed the speech, broadcast on a regional news channel, was inflammatory and directly led to violent attacks on Hindi-speaking employees in public-facing roles at various locations in Mumbai, including Powai and Versova.

The petition detailed a history of alleged harassment and threats against Shukla, including a "chilling message on Twitter that openly incited his murder," over 100 anonymous threatening phone calls, and an attempt by approximately 30 individuals allegedly affiliated with MNS to ransack his party's office on October 6, 2024. A key contention was the complete inaction by state authorities, including the Maharashtra Chief Minister, the Director General of Police, and the Mumbai Police Commissioner, despite formal complaints. The petitioner stressed that no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered.

The plea invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). It also cited Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits promoting enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language in connection with an election.

The reliefs sought from the Apex Court were comprehensive and multi-pronged:

1. Police Protection and Investigation: A writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra and the Mumbai Police Commissioner to provide immediate police protection to the petitioner and his family, and to register FIRs based on his complaints.
2. Electoral Action: A direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider taking action against the MNS, including its derecognition, for promoting hatred and enmity.
3. Independent Probe: A directive for an investigation by an independent agency or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure a fair and impartial inquiry into the incidents of hate speech and violence.
4. Injunctive Relief: A temporary restraint on Raj Thackeray from making further provocative public statements pending the completion of the investigation.

The Supreme Court's Stand: A Lesson in Jurisdiction

During the brief hearing, the bench led by CJI Gavai was unequivocal in its decision not to entertain the matter directly. The Chief Justice pointedly remarked, "Is the Bombay High Court on vacation?" This query underscored the Court's view that the High Court, vested with wide powers under Article 226, is the appropriate primary forum for such grievances.

The bench stated, “We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. You may approach the Bombay High Court.”

Following this clear indication from the bench, the petitioner's counsel, which included Advocates Abid Ali Beeran and Sriram Parakkat, sought permission to withdraw the plea. The Court granted this request, issuing a formal order clarifying its position: “Learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.” This concluding remark is significant as it leaves the door open for the petitioner to argue all points afresh before the Bombay High Court without prejudice.

Legal Analysis: The Sanctity of Article 32 and Alternative Remedies

The Supreme Court's decision, though procedural, carries substantial weight in constitutional jurisprudence. Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself, guaranteeing the "right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part." Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously called it the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.

However, the Court has consistently held that the existence of an alternative, efficacious remedy, particularly under Article 226, is a valid ground for exercising judicial restraint. The jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is, in fact, wider than that of the Supreme Court under Article 32, as it can be invoked for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as "for any other purpose."

By directing the petitioner to the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court reinforces several key principles:

• Decongestion of the Apex Court: It prevents the Supreme Court from being inundated with cases that can be effectively handled by High Courts, allowing it to focus on matters of substantial constitutional importance and national legal policy.
• Proximity and Factual Adjudication: The High Court is better positioned geographically and jurisdictionally to adjudicate on matters involving local facts, state authorities, and evidence that may need to be called upon. The allegations in this case are rooted entirely within Maharashtra, making the Bombay High Court the most suitable forum for a thorough examination.
• Strengthening the Federal Judicial Structure: This approach upholds the authority and competence of High Courts as superior courts of record, reinforcing the federal balance within the judiciary.

While a citizen can directly approach the Supreme Court for a violation of fundamental rights, the Court is not bound to entertain every such petition. This case serves as a contemporary example of the Court's discretionary power to channel litigation through the proper hierarchical route, ensuring that the judicial system functions efficiently without undermining the citizen's right to seek justice.

The petitioner now retains the full right to file a fresh writ petition before the Bombay High Court, presenting the same set of facts and seeking the same reliefs. The High Court will be tasked with independently assessing the plea for police protection, the demand for an FIR, the call for an SIT, and the complex question of directing the ECI to consider the derecognition of a political party.