[Kangana Ranaut v BMC] We are all proud Maharashtrians, but is this the way to react?: Bombay HC on Sanjay Raut's "Kanoon kya hain" remark

Both the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut drew criticism today from the Bombay High Court during the hearing in actress Kangana Ranaut's writ petition challenging the demolition of certain parts of her property..While arguing that the demolition was a counterblast to her public disagreements with the ruling Shiv Sena regime in Maharashtra, the actress drew the Court's attention to Raut's comments on her during an interview..After Kangana tweeted critically of the Mumbai Police on September 5, Raut is accused of having made several derogatory remarks against the actress on a TV channel, including calling her "Haramkhor.".The TV anchor is stated to have asked Raut whether the law would be taken into one's own hands in the matter, to which the Shiv Sena spokesperson is stated to have responded, "Kanoon kya hain?" ("What is law?").Today, the High Court pulled up Raut over this remark, asking,"What is 'Kanoon kya hain'?".Raut's counsel submitted today that the spokesperson was unconnected with the BMC's demolition, contrary to Kangana's allegations that his remarks were also indicative of the ruling regime's malice in ordering the property demolition..Responding to the Court's query, the counsel further told the Court that Raut's remark in question was made in response to various "dishonest" remarks by Kangana, including a tweet indicating that Maharashtra is not safe anymore. It was not meant to be threatening, the counsel said. .The Bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla were, however, not fully satisfied with the explanation. The Court went on to pull up Raut for making such comments, especially given his position as a leader and a parliamentarian. The Court said, ."Even we don't agree with a word of what is said. We are all Maharashtrians. We are proud of being Maharashtrians, but is this the way to react? Is this the way to address?"Bombay High Court.During today's hearing the Court also pulled up BMC officials over their sudden interest in demolishing Kangana Ranaut's property earlier this month. ."We have a simple question to ask you Mr Sakhare", the Court remarked as Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare concluded his submissions for the day on behalf of a BMC official impleaded in the matter. .The Court proceeded to query: "What was this designated officer doing before they rushed in September? What were they doing when the entire work came up? What made you go only now? ".The Bench further observed, ."You're saying that there was some external extension. First you used JCB to break the extension. Anyone on the street can see that extension. What were your officers doing when it was put up? Only when they were painting and making some finishing touches...."."All this work was going on. No one saw it? A huge superstructure came up and all your officers turned a blind eye until 5 and 7 September."Bombay High Court.Sakhare asserted that no case has been made out by Kangana as far as her allegations of the BMC and the State of Maharashtra acting in malice are concerned. While allegations of malice are easy to make, it is not easy to prove, he said. .Referring to case laws, Sakhare contended that there was a heavy burden and a high standard of proof required to be discharged before a statutory body can be held to have acted with malice. .Submitting that such proof of high credibility has not been presented by Kangana, Sakhare said, "Malafide is the last refuge of a losing litigant... Except for her word, there is no connection...The petitioner, as a last refuge, as a losing litigant is making allegations of malafides, which should not be entertained.".He added that Kangana should have to approach a civil court if she wants to prove her allegations of malafide by the BMC officer who ordered the demolition. This officer had been impleaded by the Court in his individual capacity. .Before today's hearing came to a close, Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf also made brief submissions, arguing that the BMC has not given any response on aspects such as:Why they did not have a detection report? Why the BMC mukadam took no photos, and why they lied at first that the mukadam had taken photos?Discrepancies in documents.The names of the workers alleged to have been present.Why was Kangana Ranaut's case treated as a "critical case" prompting the BMC to call for police assistance?.Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy also appeared for the BMC today. .Whereas Advocate Pradeep Thorat was expected to make arguments for Sanjay Raut today, the Court was told that he would not be able to appear today owing to a personal difficulty. .The matter has been posted for October 5, for filing written submissions.