Saket Court of Delhi has issued a summon to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee and others on a defamation suit filed by Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, a spokesperson of the Bhartiya Janata Party Mumbai unit for allegedly referring to him as a violent and abusive troll.
The District Judge Gunjan Gupta in an order passed on July 19, 2024, issued summons of the suit and notice of the application u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to the Dhruv Rathee and Social media intermediaries for 06.08.2024. Advocates Raghav Awasthi with Mukesh Sharma appeared for the plaintiff in the matter.
According to the suit on 07.07.2024, Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video from his YouTube channel titled "My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee". As of the date of filing of the captioned case, the said video got 2,41,85,609 views and more than 2.3 million likes.
Also Read | Parody account’s post lands YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in legal trouble
Plaintiff Suresh Karamshi Nakhua stated that Dhruv Rathee claimed that Prime Minister Modi had hosted violent and abusive trolls like Ankit Jain, Suresh Nakhua, and Tajinder Bagga at his official residence. The video in question has received over 24 million views and more than 2.3 million likes.
The suit further submitted that since in the video violent tendencies are attributed to the plaintiff for no rhyme or reason ostensibly about the Prime Minister, who is one of the followers of the plaintiff, it is clear that the said video tends to bring down the plaintiff in the estimation of ordinary people.
Plaintiff also stated that Mr. Dhruv who in a highly provocative and incendiary video that spread like wildfire across digital platforms, made bold and unsubstantiated claims against the plaintiff. The insidious intent behind this video lies in its unfounded insinuation that the plaintiff is somehow linked to violent and abusive troll activities, it said.
As a result of Dhruv Rathee's defamatory statements in the said video, the plaintiff's reputation has been severely damaged. The false accusations made by Dhruv Rathee have led to widespread condemnation and ridicule of the plaintiff, causing irreparable harm to his personal and professional life, stated the suit.
