A Delhi court today imposed costs of ₹5,000 on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua after his counsel sought another adjournment in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee [Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee].
District Judge Pritam Singh passed the order.
"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," the court said.
Nakhua, the spokesperson for the Mumbai unit of the BJP, sued Rathee for defamation last year over a July 7, 2024 YouTube video titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee."
Nakhua objected to Rathee linking Nakhua to “violent and abusive trolls." As per Nakhua's suit, such allegations were made in the video without any “rhyme or reason” and affected his reputation.
He argued that because of the allegations made by Rathee, he (Nakhua) faced widespread condemnation and ridicule.
During a hearing of the matter in September 2024, the Court had flagged a defect in an affidavit filed by Nakhua in the matter and asked him to file a fresh affidavit after curing this defect.
Accordingly, an amended affidavit was filed by Nakhua. However, Rathee's counsel flagged errors in this amended affidavit as well. This led the court to summon the notary who certified Nakhua's affidavit.
However, the notary has not appeared till date allegedly because he has suffered a bone fracture.
In today's hearing, a new counsel, Advocate Jagdish Trivedi appeared for Nakhua. Advocate Trivedi urged the court to adjourn the case so that his vakalatnama may be brought on record.
Senior Advocate Satvik Verma and Advocate Nakul Gandhi appeared for Rathee. Verma opposed the request for adjournment and questioned Nakhua's conduct till date.
Verma argued that the matter ought to be dismissed considering Nakhua's conduct.
"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 The last counsel has withdrawn his vakalatnama.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. Court previously took exception to the conduct. Subsequently the notary was summoned ... The original vakalatnama was filed by one Mukesh Sharma which was withdrawn on November 3. Now, one more month has passed. The orders speak for themselves. Judicial orders are binding on successive bench. On the basis of the conduct, it is not as if they don’t know, I am requesting that this matter is dismissed," Verma stated.
He emphasised that Nakhua has made several errors in the affidavit.
"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? Last time also there was nobody here. The Court process has been taken for granted. It does not take one month to file a vakalatnama," Verma submitted.
The matter will be heard next on March 11, 2026.
Advocates Mujeeb, Siddhi Sahoo and Shantanu Parmar also appeared for Dhruv Rathee.
Note: The article earlier mentioned that the costs were imposed as a condition to file a corrected affidavit. The error has been rectified and is regretted.