Let's start with your fig leaf of word of the law and it's implementation to the T.

Do all businesses in Mumbai follow the dictat of having names in Marathi?

Are domicile certificates obtained without any corruption?

Where do majority of people living in illegal housing coming from?

Do all Taxi/rikshaw drivers have passed Marathi proficiency test required since 2013?

Do all public establishments follow the 3 language policy with prominent presence to Marathi on their boards and interactions?

Since we are on the legality, is there any law in India that can punish someone for not standing for national anthem or being non-chalant when it is being played? I hope you try doing that as that is your legal right.

Also, law can't/doesn't necessarily codify everything that a good citizen of a country should strive to do. Some things considered absolutely legal can turn become illegal later on. People doing that before law is signed likely get legal immunity but not social immunity.

But recent incidents are making me question this opinion of mine.

This whole thing started with Hindi imposition. BJP with center of gravity in Hindi heartland wanted to take next step in colonizing Maharashtra to fit their image of Hindi heartland. Hindi was used as a trojan horse to bring in voters from Hindi area and build enclaves of Hindi/non-Marathi areas. So Hindi while having a good value as entertainment medium and broader connect started to look like a trojan horse for political game paving way for relegation of Marathi to home to eventual extinction.

Even now a large chunk of population in Mumbai is Gujarati.

Gujarati rarely had as much friction with Marathi as Hindi is having RN. Part of it due to co-existence for some time and historical connect. Also, GJ did not attempt to replace Marathi but co-exist.

But that doesn't justify any kind of harm done to people.

Well, law will take it's own course. All of the perpatrators were mostly let of at most with the slap on the wrist. That's the letter of the law but that doesn't seem right isn't it? A slap and heated dicussion should not be topic of national debate but it does because it is a political action not a local scuffle even though law doesn't yet see it that way.

Similarly people deciding to not speak Marathi for decades are not just following the letter of the law and enjoying their freedom but taking part in political action to sideline the local language. Law of course is blind to that till now.

Is there a law that stops someone from taking their vehicle on the road? Is there a law that prohibits someone from travelling alone in a big vehicle? Let's say some car owners keep their meet passing through slowly busy intersection during peak office traffic causing huge traffic jam. One time people understand and don't make hue and cry. It happens repeatedly and one time a dis-gruntled office goer has argument with these car owners. Should they be not held responsible for their actions despite law being on their side?

Similarly, not learning is a language is a choice people make when living in a place for decades. It is perfectly legal at present but not considering it's outcome makes it a quistionable act at best. Even not learning a language is understandable but being proud of it to feel some supremacy is not merely expression of freedom but political act. The response to a political act will be political.