Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has criticised the joint Mumbai protest led by Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray, calling the Thackeray cousins “Ghajinis” over their campaign against the Election Commission of India (ECI). Fadnavis argued that their criticism was based on a timeline that did not match the dates of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election, the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the start of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
The remarks came a day after Uddhav and Raj Thackeray jointly led a protest march in Mumbai demanding the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar and opposing the ongoing SIR of electoral rolls. The rally marked another public appearance by the cousins together after years of political separation and was attended by leaders from the Congress and the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (NCP-SP).
What Happened in the Mumbai Protest
The joint protest took place on October 4, 2026, in south Mumbai. Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray led supporters from the Byculla area towards the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation headquarters near Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.
The protest was centred on the Election Commission and the voter-roll revision exercise known as Special Intensive Revision. The Thackerays demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and called for changes to the electoral process.
The organisers deliberately avoided party flags and symbols. Participants were instead asked to carry the Indian Tricolour, with Raj Thackeray describing the march as a broader protest against the functioning of the Election Commission rather than an event aimed at a particular political party.
Congress leaders Balasaheb Thorat and Vijay Wadettiwar also participated. Leaders associated with the Sharad Pawar-led NCP-SP, including Jayant Patil, Shashikant Shinde, Jitendra Awhad and Anil Deshmukh, were also present.
The joint appearance was politically significant because Uddhav and Raj Thackeray are cousins who had been separated politically for years. Their cooperation over electoral issues has created a new point of coordination between their parties, particularly ahead of Maharashtra's civic elections.
Why Fadnavis Called Them 'Ghajinis'
Speaking to reporters in Nagpur, Fadnavis attacked the argument being made by the Thackeray cousins over the Election Commission.
He referred to the 2008 Hindi film Ghajini, whose central character suffers from severe short-term memory loss. Fadnavis used the reference to suggest that Uddhav and Raj Thackeray had overlooked the chronology of events surrounding the Maharashtra election and the subsequent voter-roll revision.
Fadnavis pointed specifically to three dates. According to his argument, Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner in 2025, Maharashtra's Assembly election took place in 2024, and the SIR exercise began in 2026.
His central question was how a chief election commissioner appointed in 2025, or an SIR process beginning in 2026, could have affected an election held in 2024. He used this timeline to challenge the Thackerays' broader criticism of the election process.
The chief minister also criticised the size of the protest, describing attendance as thin despite what he called extensive publicity around the march.
These comments represent Fadnavis's political response to the Thackerays' allegations. They should be distinguished from the separate factual question of how the Election Commission's voter-roll processes operate and whether particular voters were incorrectly affected.
What Are Uddhav and Raj Thackeray Demanding?
The Thackeray cousins' protest focused primarily on the Election Commission, Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Uddhav Thackeray questioned aspects of the voter-verification process, while Raj Thackeray has argued that there are broader problems with the country's electoral system. At the Mumbai march, the two leaders called for the chief election commissioner to step down.
Raj Thackeray has also called for the SIR exercise to be scrapped and has advocated a return to paper ballots. The protest therefore went beyond a criticism of one official and became a broader political challenge over electoral administration.
The opposition parties have raised concerns that voter-roll revisions could result in eligible voters being removed from electoral lists. The Election Commission has rejected the broader allegation that its exercise is designed to benefit a particular political party and has said the purpose of electoral-roll revision is to maintain accurate voter lists by identifying duplicate, deceased or otherwise ineligible entries.
This disagreement is at the centre of the political dispute: opposition leaders are questioning the process and its consequences, while the Election Commission and the BJP reject the allegation that the exercise is politically designed.
The Timeline at the Centre of the Dispute
The dates cited by Fadnavis are important to understanding his criticism.
Maharashtra Assembly election — 2024
The Maharashtra Assembly election took place in 2024. Fadnavis argued that the election could not have been influenced by an individual who became Chief Election Commissioner only in 2025 or by an SIR process that began in 2026.
Gyanesh Kumar's appointment — 2025
Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner in 2025. Fadnavis used this fact to challenge arguments that directly connect Kumar to the conduct of the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly election.
Special Intensive Revision — 2026
The SIR exercise being challenged by the Thackerays is taking place in 2026. Fadnavis therefore argued that the 2026 exercise cannot itself have altered the results of the 2024 election.
The timeline does not by itself resolve wider questions about electoral administration or later changes to voter lists. It does, however, explain the specific point Fadnavis was making when he used the “Ghajinis” description.
The Thackeray Cousins' Political Cooperation
The Mumbai march is significant beyond the immediate dispute with the Election Commission because it brought Uddhav and Raj Thackeray together on a public political platform.
Uddhav leads the Shiv Sena (UBT), while Raj leads the MNS. Their political relationship has been shaped by the division of the wider Shiv Sena political legacy and the emergence of separate parties and organisations.
Their recent coordination has focused on issues involving voter lists and electoral administration. The decision to hold a joint march, and particularly the decision to avoid party flags, allowed the organisers to present the event as a wider civic and democratic issue rather than a conventional party rally.
The presence of Congress and NCP-SP leaders also gave the march a broader opposition character.
The joint appearance does not automatically establish a formal electoral alliance between the parties. It instead shows cooperation around a specific political issue.
What the Opposition Says About SIR
Opposition parties have criticised the Special Intensive Revision process on the grounds that changes to voter rolls could exclude eligible voters.
Reuters reported that protesters in Mumbai and Delhi have alleged that recent voter-roll revisions could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters and benefit the ruling BJP. The Election Commission and BJP have denied that the exercise is intended to produce such a political outcome.
The Election Commission has described voter-roll revision as a mechanism for improving the accuracy of electoral lists. The process involves identifying entries that may be duplicates, relate to deceased persons or otherwise do not meet eligibility requirements.
The dispute therefore involves both a technical question about voter-list verification and a political argument over whether the process is being implemented fairly.
For voters, the practical issue is whether eligible citizens remain correctly listed and can participate in elections. For political parties, the size and composition of electoral rolls can have significant consequences for campaign planning and voter outreach.
Fadnavis' Wider Criticism
Fadnavis did not limit his comments to the timeline involving the chief election commissioner and SIR.
He accused the opposition leaders of making claims about the electoral process that he said were not credible. He also argued that the protest reflected frustration after the leaders had been rejected by voters.
The comments are part of a wider political dispute between the Maharashtra government and opposition parties over electoral administration.
Because Fadnavis is Maharashtra's chief minister and a senior BJP leader, his criticism also represents the ruling side's response to the renewed public cooperation between the two Thackeray-led parties.
The language used by Fadnavis was political rhetoric rather than an official assessment of the Election Commission's procedures. The opposition's allegations similarly remain political claims unless established through evidence or a competent authority.
Why the Election Commission Has Become a Political Issue
The Election Commission has faced increasing scrutiny from opposition parties over voter-roll revisions and the administration of elections.
In Mumbai, the Thackerays' protest specifically targeted Gyanesh Kumar and the SIR exercise. The demonstration followed wider opposition mobilisation around electoral-roll questions, including protests in other parts of the country.
The controversy has also been fuelled by disagreements over the independence of election institutions. Opposition parties argue that election authorities must remain insulated from political influence, while the government and the Election Commission reject claims that the electoral process is being manipulated for partisan purposes.
These competing claims make the underlying documentation and procedures particularly important. Questions about voter eligibility, deletion of names and verification should ultimately be assessed using electoral records and the rules governing the SIR process rather than political statements alone.
What the Mumbai March Means Politically
The protest provides the Thackeray cousins with a common political platform at a time when electoral issues are becoming increasingly prominent in Maharashtra.
For Uddhav Thackeray, the issue provides an opportunity to challenge the Election Commission and raise concerns about voter verification. For Raj Thackeray, the march continues his longer-running criticism of electoral processes.
The decision to use the Tricolour rather than party flags was also intended to make the event appear broader than either party's organisational base. The organisers invited ruling parties to participate, although the protest remained primarily associated with the opposition.
The BJP's response, including Fadnavis' criticism, shows that the ruling party views the march as a political challenge rather than simply an administrative protest.
Whether the cooperation between Uddhav and Raj Thackeray extends beyond electoral issues remains a separate political question.
What We Do Not Yet Know
Several aspects of the dispute remain unresolved.
It is not established that the SIR exercise has deliberately removed eligible voters for the benefit of a particular political party. That is an allegation made by opposition protesters and is rejected by the Election Commission and BJP.
It is also not clear whether the recent cooperation between Uddhav and Raj Thackeray will develop into a broader political arrangement. Their joint participation in the Mumbai march demonstrates coordination on the electoral issue, but does not by itself establish a formal alliance.
The size of the protest is also contested politically. Fadnavis described attendance as thin, while reports described thousands of opposition supporters and protesters participating in demonstrations connected to the wider campaign. Exact attendance figures for the Mumbai march should therefore be treated cautiously unless independently verified.
For now, the dispute remains centred on the Election Commission, voter-roll revision and competing interpretations of the electoral timeline.
The immediate political exchange has moved from the Thackerays' demands for action against the Election Commission to Fadnavis' criticism of their arguments. The debate is likely to remain part of Maharashtra's political discourse as questions surrounding voter rolls and electoral administration continue.