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 to Dhruv Rathee and social media intermediaries for August 6. Advocates Raghav Awasthi with Mukesh Sharma appeared for the BJP leader in the matter.
Now Rathee has issued his first response on the entire controversy with a tweet saying, "One abusive BJP uncle has filed a ₹20 Lakh court case against me because I called him abusive Kyun itni bezati karane ka shaukh hai inko? Ab in uncle ki puri abusive history dobara public hogi." According to the case, Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video from his YouTube channel under the title "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, which is increasing every minute.
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, a number that continues rise rapidly. The case says that it is clear that the said video has the tendency to bring down the reputation of the leader in front of ordinary people.
The leader also stated that Dhruv who in a highly provocative and incendiary video that spread like wildfire across digital platforms, made bold and unsubstantiated claims against him. The insidious intent behind this video lies in its intention that the leader is somehow linked to violent and abusive troll activities.As a result of Dhruv Rathee's defamatory statements in the said video, the BJP leader's reputation has been severely damaged. The false accusations made by Dhruv Rathee have led to widespread condemnation and ridicule of the leader, causing irreparable harm to his personal and professional life, stated the suit.