Summary:
The Bombay high court, said that Shiv Sena chief spokesperson Sanjay Raut being a parliamentarian should have shown some grace and restraint when responding to her.
.
The Bombay high court, said that Shiv Sena chief spokesperson Sanjay Raut being a parliamentarian should have shown some grace and restraint when responding to her.
"It did not agree with the tweets by actor Kangana Ranaut pertaining to the state government and the Mumbai Police," said Bombay HC.
In his affidavit, Raut, while admitting that the words in the interview to the TV channel were directed at the petitioner, said that it was not due to any malice towards her, but were prompted after she raised aspersions about the state not being safe.
The court, hearing Ranaut’s petition against the demolition carried out at her Pali Hill bungalow here by the Brihanmumbai Municipal (BMC) on September 9, has directed all parties to submit their written submissions within a week and posted the matter for hearing next week.
A division bench of justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla, while hearing the response of Bhagyawant Late, designated officer of the BMC who was impleaded in the case after the petition of the actor was amended, was informed by senior counsel Anil Sakhare that the actor’s allegations of malice were baseless.
While responding to the allegations made by the actor against him, Sakhare submitted that Late’s subordinates had visited the Pali Hill bungalow around 1pm much before her tweet, which was made around 5pm.
Hence, the allegation that the detection was prompted due to her tweet was not valid.
Sakhare further submitted that as per previous judgements, making allegations of malice were easy, but proving them was the responsibility of the accuser.
However, at no place in the petition or affidavits submitted by the actor had she proved malice on his part.
In light of the submissions, Sakhare sought dismissal of the petition.
The court then perused Raut’s affidavit wherein it was submitted that he was not concerned with the demolition matter and that he had not threatened the actor in a derogatory and abusive manner as alleged.