BJP leader Suresh Nakhua sought additional time to correct yet another defective affidavit in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. In response, Rathee has filed an application requesting the dismissal of the suit, citing the repeated submission of flawed affidavits by the plaintiff. The case highlights procedural delays and legal disputes between the two parties. The court’s decision on the matter is awaited.
BJP leader Suresh Nakhua recently requested additional time from the Saket District Court to correct an issue in his affidavit related to his defamation suit against Dhruv Rathee.
In response, Rathee submitted an application for the dismissal of the suit, arguing that Nakhua has consistently filed defective affidavits.
In his application filed through advocate Nakul Gandhi, Rathee contended,
“The plaintiff (Nakhua), who has suppressed facts and made repeated errors, cannot enjoy the benevolence of this Hon’ble Court. An errant litigant cannot get the liberty of this court,”
The case was addressed on November 14 by District Judge Gunjan Gupta, who noted that Nakhua sought time to correct a defect related to the new criminal laws governing the filing of electronic evidence.
The court remarked,
“Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that in view of the objection raised by the defendant by way of the present application, he be allowed some time to file the correct certificate in terms of Section 63 (admissibility of electronic record) of the BSA, 2023.”
Nakhua’s request for additional time to correct the defects in his affidavit was met with strong opposition from Rathee’s counsel, who argued that ample time had already been provided for Nakhua to submit a proper affidavit.
The court scheduled the next hearing for February 4, 2025, by which time Nakhua is expected to respond to Rathee’s application for dismissing the suit.
Additionally, the court instructed the counsel to discuss the legislative intent and purpose of the expert certificate mandated under the new law (Section 63 BSA) and whether the absence of such a certificate constitutes a material defect that justifies the dismissal of the suit.
The court remarked,
“It has been six months since these provisions came into effect. There must be some judgments regarding this certificate. I would like to understand the implications of this particular section,”
Nakhua, who serves as the spokesperson for the Mumbai unit of the BJP, filed a defamation suit against Rathee concerning a YouTube video released on July 7, titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.”
Nakhua objected to Rathee’s claims linking him to “violent and abusive trolls,” asserting that such allegations were made without justification and have harmed his reputation.
He argued that the allegations have subjected him to widespread condemnation and ridicule, stating,
“The repercussions of such false allegations are manifold, extending well beyond the realm of the video itself to irrevocably impact both the personal and professional domains of the Plaintiff, leaving scars that may never fully heal.”
During a previous hearing in September, the court identified a defect in Nakhua’s affidavit and instructed him to file a corrected version. An amended affidavit subsequently submitted.
However, during the hearing on November 14, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, representing Rathee, contended that Nakhua’s affidavit remained defective. He pointed out that it was filed under the old Indian Evidence Act rather than the new law, the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which requires an expert’s certificate to validate electronic media.
Varma argued that in a defamation case based on a video, the video cannot be adequately examined without the proper affidavit.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi, representing Nakhua, claimed that the defect in the affidavit was rectifiable and requested permission to submit an amended plaint along with a new affidavit.
The matter set to be heard again in February 2025. Advocates Mujeeb, Arindam Bhardwaj, Balram, and Shantanu also appeared on behalf of Rathee.