Delhi court summons YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in defamation case filed by BJP spokesperson

A Delhi court on Wednesday (Jul 24) issued summons to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a defamation case filed by a spokesperson of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Rathi, who is known for making critical videos against the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had allegedly referred to Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, the spokesperson, as a violent and abusive troll.

The District Judge Gunjan Gupta of Saket Court issued summons to Rathi as well as social media intermediaries for August 6.

"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," the court said in its order.

The video in question

Rathi had uploaded a video titled, 'My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee' on his YouTube channel, which has accumulated over 2 million views. As per claims made by Nakhua, Rathi in his video alleged that "PM Modi had hosted violent and abusive trolls like Ankit Jain, Suresh Nakhua, and Tajinder Bagga at his official residence."

Advocates Raghav Awasthi with Mukesh Sharma, who appeared for the BJP leader, said the video threatened the party's reputation in public.

Watch:India exempts foreigners investing in gift city from taxes

"That through this cunningly crafted video, a deliberate campaign to besmirch the Plaintiff's (Suresh Karamshi Nakhua) integrity and reputation is apparent, as baseless accusations and malicious connections are artfully insinuated. The primary creator of this video that is Plaintiff seek not only to cast doubt on the Plaintiff's character but also to tarnish his hard-earned standing in society, has planted seeds of suspicion and mistrust that can have far-reaching consequences. 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,” the case said.

(With inputs from agencies)