A Delhi District Court issued a show-cause notice to notary Suman Sharma for attesting a defective affidavit in Suresh Nakhua’s defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee after she repeatedly failed to appear despite summons, even through video conferencing.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has issued a show-cause notice to Suman Sharma, the notary who attested a defective affidavit filed by BJP leader Suresh Nakhua in his defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.
District Judge Pritam Singh ordered the notice after observing that the notary repeatedly failed to appear in response to court summons.
The court said,
“She should have joined through at least VC. As she is not willing, therefore, issue show cause notice to Sharma. This can be taken within a week,”
Nakhua, the Mumbai BJP spokesperson, sued Rathee in 2024 over a YouTube video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee,” alleging Rathee linked him to “violent and abusive trolls.” Nakhua claimed those allegations were baseless, harmed his reputation and led to widespread condemnation and ridicule.
In September 2024 the court identified a defect in an affidavit Nakhua filed and directed him to submit a corrected version. He filed an amended affidavit, but Rathee’s counsel flagged further errors. Nakhua repeatedly sought time to fix the issues, and the court ultimately summoned the notary who had certified the affidavit in August 2025.
The notary has not yet appeared. She previously said she suffered a bone fracture and at the latest hearing informed the court she could not attend due to an eye problem, producing a hospital discharge summary showing admission and discharge on March 9 and a follow-up on March 10.
Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, for Rathee, said this was the third occasion the notary had evaded the court’s direction.
He said,
“Three times summons have been issued to the notary who certified Nakhua’s affidavit. We have also sent a WhatsApp message. This is the third time we have asked her to come to court, we call her, she refuses. When the party is not being truthful to court, the matter can be dismissed. They have lied on affidavit, that is why the notary was asked to appear,”
Advocate Nakul Gandhi, also for Rathee, submitted the notary was deliberately avoiding court by offering excuses.
The judge ordered:
“I am issuing notice to the notary (who attested Nakhua’s earlier affidavit in which certain defects were noticed). Last and final opportunity given to plaintiff, (adjournment granted) subject to cost of Rs 5,000. Court will hear arguments on Order 7 Rule 11.”
The court also noted that Nakhua has not yet paid the Rs 5,000 imposed at the prior hearing as a condition for an adjournment.
A new advocate the third to represent Nakhua since proceedings began appeared today. Rathee’s counsel accused Nakhua of using delay tactics.
Varma said,
“These are tactics to delay. Matter has been going on from December to March, they are now saying that today they have filed vakalatnama,”
Nakhua’s new counsel assured the court the previously ordered costs would be paid that day. Nakhua attended the hearing via video conference. The matter is listed next for July 15.
The Court said,
“Put up for argument on application of Order 7 Rule 11 (rejection of plaint),”
Rathee has moved to have the defamation suit dismissed on the ground that Nakhua repeatedly files defective affidavits.
His application contends that,
“The plaintiff (Nakhua) who has suppressed facts and who has made repeated errors, cannot enjoy the benevolence of this Hon’ble Court. An errant litigant cannot get the liberty of this court.”
Counsel for Rathee also noted that Nakhua’s affidavit cites the old Indian Evidence Act instead of the updated Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Senior Advocate Varma argued the case should be dismissed given Nakhua’s conduct, pointing out in a December 2025 hearing that numerous errors had been made.
He said,
“It has been going on for (nearly) two years. Court’s broad shoulders can brush off one or two mistakes. This is the seventh error. Now today who is this gentleman appearing without vakalat? Last time also there was nobody here. The Court process has been taken for granted. It does not take one month to file a vakalatnama,”
Advocates Gurdeep Singh, Pratishtha Dahiya, Siddhi Sahoo and Shantanu Parmar also represented Dhruv Rathee.
Case Title: Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE