BJP leader fined as Dhruv Rathee defamation case stumbles yet again

A Delhi court on Wednesday, 4 December imposed a Rs 5,000 cost on BJP leader Suresh Nakhua after his newly appointed counsel sought yet another adjournment in his defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, Bar & Bench reported. The case — Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee — has already witnessed repeated procedural lapses and delays on the plaintiff’s side.

District Judge Pritam Singh passed the order, noting: "I am issuing notice to the notary (who attested Nakhua's earlier affidavit in which certain defects were noticed). Last and final opportunity given to plaintiff, (adjournment granted) subject to cost of ₹5,000. Court will hear arguments on Order 7 Rule 11."

Nakhua, the BJP’s Mumbai spokesperson, sued Rathee over a 7 July 2024 YouTube video titled 'My Reply to Godi Youtubers|Elvish Yadav|Dhruv Rathee'. He objected to Rathee linking him to “violent and abusive trolls,” arguing in his suit that the claims were made “without any rhyme or reason” and had resulted in “widespread condemnation and ridicule”.

As earlier reported by Bar & Bench, the case has been riddled with affidavit errors. In September 2024, the court flagged defects in Nakhua’s affidavit and directed him to file a corrected one. When he did, Rathee’s counsel pointed out mistakes in the amended affidavit as well, prompting the court to summon the notary who certified it. The notary has yet to appear, allegedly due to a bone fracture.

At Wednesday’s hearing, a new advocate, Jagdish Trivedi, appeared for Nakhua and sought adjournment to place his vakalatnama on record. Senior advocate Satvik Varma, appearing for Rathee along with advocate Nakul Gandhi, opposed the request and urged dismissal of the suit based on the plaintiff’s conduct.

Varma argued: "Nobody has appeared for plaintiff for last many hearings. The last counsel has withdrawn his vakalatnama. Please see the sequence of events. They filed a plaint. The affidavit with the Plaint was faulty. Their second affidavit was faulty as well. The suit is based on a video, which was not accompanied by an application under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. On the sixth occasion, he again filed a faulty affidavit, which allegedly notarised before signed by plaintiff.

"It has been going on for (nearly) two years. Court’s broad shoulders can brush off one or two mistakes. This is the seventh error. Now today who is this gentleman appearing without vakalat?… The Court process has been taken for granted. It does not take one month to file a vakalatnama."

The matter is next listed for 11 March 2026, Bar & Bench noted. Advocates Mujeeb, Siddhi Sahoo, and Shantanu Parmar also appeared for Rathee.

The Germany-based Rathee commands a large, multi-platform audience in the tens of millions, establishing him as one of India’s biggest YouTubers / online critics — which helps explain why legal actions, political attacks or defamation suits against him draw attention and stir controversy.

He has long been a contentious figure within India’s right-wing digital ecosystem. His videos, sharply critical of the Modi government and pro-BJP influencers, have made him a frequent target of coordinated online attacks, allegations of foreign influence, and calls for FIRs or censorship.

This is not the first legal challenge he has faced from individuals aligned with or sympathetic to right-wing groups:

• A 2018 defamation case over his viral Haryana-related Facebook video was widely amplified by pro-government voices before the complainant withdrew

• Multiple police complaints and legal notices have been filed against him in recent years by right-wing activists claiming misinformation or defamation

• Organised digital campaigns have repeatedly framed him as “anti-India” or “agenda-driven”, reflecting a sustained hostility to his critique-driven commentary.

Against that backdrop, Nakhua’s defamation suit fits a broader pattern of litigation and digital mobilisation aimed at Rathee by sections of the right-wing ecosystem that perceive him as an influential disruptor of pro-government narratives.