Tensions flared near the T2 terminal of the Mumbai International Airport on Saturday as a high-voltage protest erupted over a local religious structure. BJP leader Kirit Somaiya, accompanied by party workers carrying hammers, reached the site to press for the removal of what he termed an unauthorized structure, prompting the police to take him and his supporters into preventive custody.
Insisting that the structure is entirely illegal, Kirit Somaiya maintained that misleading claims are being spread regarding its legal status. He asserted that no official petition is currently pending in any court, and maintained that authorities including MMRDA have already classified the construction as unauthorized. Directing sharp criticism at political opponents, he accused Uddhav Thackeray, AIMIM, Waris Pathan, Sharad Pawar, and the Congress of indulging in appeasement politics and attempting to shield the disputed site.
The confrontation follows an earlier ultimatum issued on October 22, when Kirit Somaiya warned that he would personally bring a hammer to the site if authorities failed to take action within 48 hours. During that earlier visit, he had staged a sit-in demonstration at the gates and claimed that the land parcel, measuring roughly 5,000 square feet of valuable real estate, had no existence prior to 2014. According to those previous claims, temporary tin sheds were erected overnight to establish the structure, alongside unauthorized temporary water and electricity connections.
The political fallout has also drawn sharp reactions from opposition figures. AIMIM leader Waris Pathan met with Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti to demand an FIR against Kirit Somaiya, questioning his authority to launch street agitations when the matter is sub judice. Simultaneously, Maharashtra Congress President Harshwardhan Sakpal lambasted the protests, accusing the BJP of attempting to polarize society along religious lines and demanding strict administrative action against the organizers rather than covert backing.
With both sides presenting contradictory claims, the legal standing of the structure remains a core point of contention. While the Muslim side maintains that the dispute is currently pending before the high court and MMRDA, the protesting leaders insist that no judicial stay is in place and that administrative bodies have already deemed the encroachment illegal. Local authorities now face the challenge of managing the escalating dispute as public pressure mounts from various political quarters.
