[My Reply To Godi Youtubers] "BJP Leader Suing Me Hid Facts, He Has A History Of Using Abusive Language": Dhruv Rathee Tells Delhi Court

YouTuber Dhruv Rathee told a Delhi court that the Suresh Nakhua, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader who is suing Rathee for defamation, has a history of abusing public figures and is playing fraud on the court to get a favourable order. The BJP leader has sued Rathee for defamation over a video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.”

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

[My Reply to Godi Youtubers] "BJP Leader Suing Me Hid Facts, He Has a History of Using Abusive Language": Dhruv Rathee Tells Delhi Court

NEW DELHI: YouTuber Dhruv Rathee argued before a Delhi court that Suresh Nakhua, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader who is suing him for defamation, has a history of using abusive language against public figures and is attempting to deceive the court to secure a favorable ruling.

Nakhua’s defamation suit against Rathee stems from a video titled

“My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.”

In his reply filed through Advocate Nakul Gandhi, Rathee pointed to several tweets in which Nakhua allegedly used offensive language toward individuals like Sonia Gandhi, Barkha Dutt, Suhel Seth, and others.

Rathee further claimed that Nakhua intentionally withheld from the court the context in which he was referred to as a “hinsak gaalibaaz” (abusive troll) in the video, arguing that this reference was based on one of Nakhua’s own tweets. Rathee’s response to the court stated:

“…the Plaintiff [Nakhua] has deliberately concealed the visual representations of the alleged defamatory portion in the impugned video from the knowledge of this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that visual representations of the impugned video hold crucial importance in determining the veracity of the allegations levied by the Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff deliberately, with conscious mind, refrained from bringing the visual representation of the alleged defamatory portion of the impugned video from the knowledge of this Hon’ble Court with the sole intention to mislead and obtain favourable order. Moreover, in order to show false urgency and injury, the Plaintiff has sought ex-parte ad interim relief.”

Rathee referred specifically to a tweet from Nakhua, which read:

“@gsurya U ass***** bit** Did I abuse u? U confirmed tht u r product of a rape i.e. Balatkar ki paidaish.”

In his submission against the interim injunction sought by Nakhua, Rathee countered the claims, asserting that Nakhua is-

“a person who instigates random public figures on public domain by way of abusing them.”

Rathee also argued that if the court were to grant Nakhua’s request, it would essentially impose a-

“super injunction/blanket injunction/gag order,”

-which is not permissible under the law.

Nakhua, on the other hand, has objected to Rathee’s characterization of him as a “violent and abusive” troll, arguing that such statements damage his reputation. He is seeking a court order to prevent Rathee from tweeting, creating, or publishing any content that is derogatory or harmful to him.

The court had issued summons to Rathee on July 19.

The defamation case was scheduled for hearing on August 16, but due to the judge being on leave, the hearing has been rescheduled for August 27.

PREVIOUSLY IN DELHI COURT

A Delhi Court on Tuesday provided YouTuber Dhruv Rathee additional time to respond to a plea filed by BJP leader Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, who is seeking a temporary injunction in the defamation case he has filed against Rathee.

Rathee’s lawyer requested extra time from the court, explaining that his client resides outside India and would need to obtain instructions from him. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, representing Nakhua, countered by stating,

“This is the age of email service.”

Despite this exchange, the court instructed that replies be filed and scheduled the case for arguments on August 16.

In his defamation case against Rathee, Nakhua has filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, seeking a temporary injunction. He claims that the tweets posted by Rathee have caused significant damage to his reputation.

During the hearing, Rathee’s counsel highlighted that the court fee filed by Nakhua was insufficient and argued that the matter could not proceed until the proper fees were submitted. He emphasized that reasonable grounds for not filing the appropriate court fees were missing from Nakhua’s application.

The court subsequently directed Nakhua’s counsel to submit the required court fees within a week.

Additionally, Rathee’s counsel expressed a desire to present Nakhua’s tweets, alleging they were abusive. He stated,

“I wanted to show his tweet. He has abused women, he has abused everyone. And now they want to file defamation against him (Dhruv Rathee)? You will be shocked to see the tweets.”

Responding to this, Awasthi claimed he had new abusive messages that his client had received.

The court noted that the case before it was a defamation matter, with an application filed by the plaintiff that involved a legal question to be resolved by the court.

Previously, Delhi’s Saket Court had issued a summons to Rathee in a Rs 20 lakh defamation suit filed by Nakhua. In the suit, Nakhua alleged that Rathee referred to his involvement as part of