Delhi Court Summons YouTuber Dhruv Rathee Over Defamation Lawsuit

A Delhi Court has taken a decisive step in the defamation case involving prominent YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, responding to a complaint filed by BJP Mumbai spokesperson Suresh Karamshi Nakhua.

Case Insights:

The court has issued summons to Rathee, as well as to Google LLC and X Corp, for allegedly defamatory statements made in one of Rathee’s YouTube videos.

The legal action stems from Nakhua’s claim that Rathee’s video, titled ‘My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav,’ unfairly categorized him as part of a group of ‘violent and abusive trolls.’

Nakhua’s suit demands Rs 20 lakhs in damages, asserting that the video has significantly tarnished his reputation in the digital realm.

District Judge Gunjan Gupta at Saket Court has ordered the issuance of summons and notices to all defendants through multiple channels, including electronic mode.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 6, 2024.

The core of Nakhua’s grievance lies in Rathee’s allegations that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had hosted ‘violent and abusive trolls’ at his official residence, with Nakhua named alongside others such as Ankit Jain and Tajinder Bagga.

According to the suit, the video has garnered over 24 million views and 2.3 million likes, further amplifying the purported defamation.

Nakhua contends that these allegations have led to severe damage to his public image and have incited widespread criticism and ridicule.

The suit claims that Rathee’s conduct has not only harmed Nakhua’s personal and professional life but also represents a pattern of habitual defamation and threats perpetrated by the YouTuber, who boasts a substantial online following of over 23.3 million subscribers on YouTube and 2.6 million followers on X Corp.

In addition to seeking damages, Nakhua’s legal team is requesting an injunction to prevent Rathee from posting any further content related to him on YouTube or X Corp.

Also Read: Opposition INDIA Bloc Protests Union Budget In Parliament, Claims Discrimination