Raj Thackeray doesn't 'deserve' any importance: HC

The Bombay high court on Monday observed that Raj Thackeray does not "deserve" any importance and that filing of cases against the MNS chief gave him importance which is not needed.

The Bombay high court on Monday observed that Raj Thackeray does not "deserve" any importance and that filing of cases against the MNS chief gave him importance which is not needed.

HT Image

A division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice Nitin Jamdar made the observation while hearing a contempt petition filed against the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) leader.

The petition filed by lawyer Ejaz Naqvi sought initiation of contempt action against Raj for allegedly making derogatory and defamatory remarks against the high court after his outfit was refused permission to hold a rally at Shivaji Park in Central Mumbai.

"He (Raj Thackeray) does not deserve any importance. By filing such proceedings you (petitioner) are giving him importance which is not needed," Shah said.

Citing the case of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, the court said, "Aseem Trivedi had drawn certain cartoons. Only when he was arrested people came to know about those cartoons. Till then no one knew who Aseem was".

The bench adjourned hearing of the petition stating it would consider the issue later.

On February 5 this year, the same bench of the high court had rejected an application filed by MNS seeking permission to hold a rally at Shivaji Park which has been declared a 'Silence Zone' by the municipal corporation.

Naqvi alleged in his contempt petition that soon after the court order Raj held a press conference and termed as "partisan" the court's order.

"The MNS leader had ridiculed the order and had also raised questions as to how the judges had not signed the order copy thus prohibiting him from approaching the Supreme Court seeking relief," he argued.

The petition alleged that Raj's remarks scandalised the court and tend to lower its authority and dignity. The remark cast an unwarranted aspersion of partiality against the high court, it said.