The Saket Court raised concerns over a defective affidavit submitted by BJP’s Suresh Nakhua in his defamation suit against Dhruv Rathee. Nakhua had filed the case in response to a YouTube video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee,” uploaded by Rathee on July 7. The court flagged the affidavit as non-compliant with legal standards. The defamation case revolves around alleged defamatory content in the video.
The Saket District Court recently directed Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua to submit a fresh affidavit in his defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.
Nakhua approached the court, accusing Rathee of defamation over a video uploaded to his YouTube channel on July 7, titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.”
District Judge Gunjan Gupta noted that the affidavit submitted with Nakhua’s petition defective, instructing him to file a corrected version. The judge remarked that although the defect was curable, Nakhua had not rectified it and proceeded with a faulty affidavit.
Nakhua, who is the spokesperson for the BJP’s Mumbai unit, claimed that Rathee referred to him in the video as being part of “violent and abusive trolls,” which he argued was baseless and damaging to his reputation.
In his suit, Suresh Nakhua accused,
“YouTuber Dhruv Rathee of making bold and unsubstantiated claims in a highly provocative and incendiary video that spread rapidly across digital platforms.“
The suit alleged that the video falsely insinuated Nakhua’s involvement in “violent and abusive troll activities” and suggested that the video was created with an “insidious intent” to defame him.
Nakhua further claimed that as a result of Rathee’s allegations, he has been subjected to widespread ridicule and condemnation.
The plea argued,
“The video cunningly crafted as part of a deliberate campaign to besmirch the Plaintiff’s integrity and reputation.”
The suit contended that the video planted “seeds of suspicion and mistrust” and was aimed at tarnishing Nakhua’s hard-earned standing in society. It emphasized the “far-reaching consequences” of the false allegations, which would impact both Nakhua’s personal and professional life, causing damage that may never fully heal.
During a hearing on September 20, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma and Advocate Nakul Gandhi, representing Rathee, argued that Nakhua’s affidavit, submitted with his petition, defective as it was not properly sworn and verified.
It was highlighted in court that while Suresh Nakhua’s affidavit stated he was a resident of Mumbai, it had been notarized in Delhi. Despite Nakhua admitting that his affidavit was defective, he proceeded to file an amended petition but without correcting the affidavit’s defects.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi, representing Nakhua, argued that the defect in the affidavit could be rectified and sought permission to submit a revised petition along with a fresh affidavit. He also mentioned that Nakhua has an office in Gurgaon, but the court rejected this reasoning and instructed Nakhua to file a new affidavit.
The case will be heard again on November 14.
Nakhua is being represented by Advocate Raghav Awasthi, while Dhruv Rathee is represented by Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, alongside Advocates Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb, and Shantanu.