District Judge Gunjan Gupta of the Saket Court issued the order on July 19. The court has also issued a notice to Rathee regarding Nakhua’s request for interim relief, scheduling the next hearing for August 6.
NEW DELHI: Recently, a Delhi court has summoned YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, who alleges that Rathee labeled him a “violent and abusive” troll.
READ ALSO: “Made Error” by retweeting video: Delhi CM Kejriwal tells SC in defamation case
District Judge Gunjan Gupta of the Saket Court issued the order on July 19. The court has also issued a notice to Rathee regarding Nakhua’s request for interim relief, scheduling the next hearing for August 6.
The court ordered,
“Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to the defendants, subject to steps by all modes i.e., PF & RC/Speed Post/Approved Courier including electronic mode for 06.08.2024. Process be also given dasti, as prayed.”
Advocates Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma are representing Nakhua.
The defamation claim arise from a video Rathee uploaded on his YouTube channel on July 7, 2024, titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.” In this video, Rathee allegedly referred to Nakhua as part of “violent and abusive trolls,” which Nakhua contends is baseless and damaging to his reputation.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal’s Defamation Case: Supreme Court Challenged Over Video Retweet
The suit claims,
“Defendant No.1 [Dhruv Rathee], in a highly provocative and incendiary video that spread rapidly across digital platforms, made bold and unsubstantiated claims against the Plaintiff. The intent behind this video appears to be to insinuate, without any evidence, that the Plaintiff is linked to violent and abusive troll activities.”
Nakhua asserts that these allegations have led to widespread condemnation and ridicule against him.
The suit further argues,
“Through this carefully crafted video, a deliberate campaign to damage the Plaintiff’s integrity and reputation is evident. The video makes baseless accusations and malicious insinuations, aiming not only to question the Plaintiff’s character but also to tarnish his societal standing. The false allegations have far-reaching consequences, impacting the Plaintiff’s personal and professional life and leaving enduring damage that may never fully heal.”
