A Delhi court has issued a summon to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in connection with a defamation case filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party leader.
Suresh Karamshi Nakhua, a spokesperson for Mumbai unit of the BJP, claimed that after Rathee called him a “violent and abusive” troll in one of his videos uploaded on his YouTube channel on July 7.
The order to summon Dhruv Rathee was issued by district Judge Gunjan Gupta of the Saket Court on July 19.
The court also issued notice to Rathee on Nakhua's plea for interim relief and posted the matter for hearing on August 6.
Also Read | Maharashtra police files case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee over parody account's post on X
"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.
In his plea, Nakhua alleged that Rathee “made bold and unsubstantiated claims” in a video and referred to him as being part of “violent and abusive trolls”.
{{/usCountry}}In his plea, Nakhua alleged that Rathee “made bold and unsubstantiated claims” in a video and referred to him as being part of “violent and abusive trolls”.
{{/usCountry}}He further pointed out that the allegations are without any “rhyme or reason” and have the tendency to hurt his reputation.
Also Read | Dhruv Rathee, wife Juli Lbr make pregnancy announcement: ‘Baby Rathee coming’
"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.”