[BMC Demolition case] We do not approve of loose, irresponsible statements: Bombay High Court cautions both Kangana Ranaut and Sanjay Raut

The Bombay High Court today ruled in favour of actress Kangana Ranaut in her petition challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) act to demolish a portion of her property..In the detailed judgment running to 166 pages, the Bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla also gave certain clarifications and observations on issues which they came across while hearing the plea..At the outset, the Court clarified that it does not support unauthorised construction or approve of irresponsible statements. .... we make it clear that this Court does not countenance unauthorized construction, and also does not approve of loose and irresponsible statements against any individual, authority or Government.Bombay High Court.In this regard, the Court cautioned Kangana Ranaut to exercise restraint on social media while airing her views as a public-spirited person. ."We do not accept as true any of the statements/allegations made by the Petitioner (Ranaut) through her tweets with regard to the alleged prevailing atmosphere in the State or the State Police or against the film industry. If anything, we are of the view that the Petitioner should be better advised to exercise restraint when 'as a public spirited person', she airs her views regarding issues of public importance on social media platforms ....", reads the order..The Court further criticized Sanjay Raut, Chief spokesperson of Shiv Sena, stating that he should have been more careful about his conduct and language, being a Member of Parliament.."The response of Raut and the language used by him show that because the Petitioner (Ranaut) tweeted on 3rd September, 2020 that she was threatened by Raut and questioned, “why Mumbai is feeling like Pakistan occupied Kashmir” Raut, without being bothered that the rule of law should always prevail, was determined to teach a lesson to the Petitioner. Such conduct certainly does not befit a leader like Shri Raut who is also a Parliamentarian.”.While criticising the manner in which BMC carried out the entire action of demolition the property in a swift manner, the Court held that the action was malice in law.."The MCGM, which is an organ of the State, has done something 'without lawful excuse.' it has proceeded to act 'wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause'; its act can only be described as a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of a citizen; the true object of the act clearly appears to be to reach an end different from the one for which the power was entrusted to it. The exercise of power can be summed up as bad in law and lacking in bonafides. It is nothing but malice in law.".Rejecting the BMC's contention that the petition itself was not maintainable as there was an alternate remedy available to Ranaut, the court held that “this objection regarding maintainability was an after thought to defeat Ranaut’s rights.”."The Petitioner is aggrieved by an ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and highhanded and malafide action of MCGM ignoring statutory provisions and guidelines of the Courts as well as of its own Circulars and the said action is an abuse of power and authority. The Petitioner therefore is fully justified in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievances and the protection of her rights.".Finally, on the point of awarding of compensation for the damages caused to Ranaut’s property, the Court deemed it fit to appoint a valuer for preparing an estimate report of the damages, which would be prepared after hearing both the parties. .“We would reserve our further Orders on such report being submitted by the valuer", the Court said. .[Read judgment]