In a recent development at the Saket Court in New Delhi, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has challenged the defamation suit filed against him by Suresh Nakhua, BJP’s Mumbai spokesperson. The case centers around Rathee’s video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers,” which Nakhua alleges defamed him, leading him to seek compensation and a court order to prevent Rathee from posting further defamatory content.

Rathee’s legal team, led by Mr. Nakul Gandhi, submitted an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the rejection of Nakhua’s plaint. They argued that the defamation suit lacks any actionable cause, as Rathee’s video merely presented factual information publicly available through Nakhua’s own Twitter posts, without offering any personal opinions. According to Rathee’s counsel, the facts mentioned in the video are clear and substantiated by public records, leaving no grounds for a defamation claim.

Additionally, Rathee’s team moved an application under Section 151 read with Section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC, pointing out serious flaws in the affidavits filed by Nakhua. They contended that the affidavits were not properly sworn and verified, making them defective and devoid of any probative value in the eyes of the law. The court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC were invoked to address these issues, as the verification of pleadings was found to be in contravention of the relevant provisions.

The court, presided over by Judge Gunjan Gupta, took note of these applications and issued a notice seeking Nakhua’s response. The judge directed that a reply and arguments on all the applications be presented during the next hearing, scheduled for September 20, 2024, at 2:00 PM.

Furthermore, Rathee’s counsel raised the issue of unpaid court fees, arguing that the case should not proceed until the proper fees are filed. The court acknowledged this submission and instructed Nakhua to pay the required court fees within a week.

This ongoing legal battle has drawn significant attention, as it highlights the tensions between political figures and public commentators in the digital age. The outcome of this case could set an important precedent for how defamation claims are handled in the context of online content and social media.