A Delhi court today issued a show cause notice to Suman Sharma, the notary of a defective affidavit filed by BJP leader Suresh Nakhua in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee [Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee]..District Judge Pritam Singh passed the order after noting that the notary has repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite summons."She should have joined through at least VC. As she is not willing, therefore, issue show cause notice to Sharma. This can be taken within a week," the court stated. .Nakhua, the spokesperson for the Mumbai unit of the BJP, had sued Rathee for defamation in 2024 over a 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. Nakhua repeatedly sought time to rectify the defect. The court eventually summoned the notary who certified Nakhua's affidavit in August 2025. However, the notary has not appeared before the court till date. Earlier, she had alleged that she suffered a bone fracture. Today, the court was told that she could not appear again as she was suffering from an issue with her eyes. To back up this health issue claim, a discharge summary issued from a hospital was placed before the court. The court noted that the notary was admitted on March 9 and also discharged on the same day and that the next checkup was March 10. .Senior Advocate Satvik Varma, appearing for Rathee, meanwhile, pointed out that this is the third time that the notary has evaded the court's direction to appear before it. “Three times summons have been issued to the notary who certified Nakhua’s affidavit. We have also sent a WhatsApp message. This is the third time we have asked her to come to court, we call her, she refuses. When the party is not being truthful to court, the matter can be dismissed. They have lied on affidavit, that is why the notary was asked to appear," he said. .Advocate Nakul Gandhi, also appearing for Rathee, submitted that the notary has been deliberately evading appearing before the court by making excuses. "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 proceeded to order..Notably, Rathee's counsel also told the court that Nakhua is yet to pay up the ₹5,000 costs he was ordered to pay during the last hearing of the case, as a condition for accepting his counsel's adjournment request. In today's hearing, a new advocate appeared on behalf of Nakhua, the third such advocate since the start of hearings. Rathee's counsel protested that Nakhua was engaged in delay tactics.“These are tactics to delay. Matter has been going on from December to March, they are now saying that today they have filed vakalatnama,” Varma stated. Nakhua's new counsel today assured the court that the costs imposed by the court in the last hearing will be paid today. Nakhua too attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The matter will be heard next on July 15."Put up for argument on application of Order 7 Rule 11 (rejection of plaint)," the Court said..Rathee, meanwhile, has filed an application seeking the dismissal of the defamation suit on the ground that Nakhua has repeatedly been filing defective affidavits. "The plaintiff (Nakhua) who has suppressed facts and who has made repeated errors, cannot enjoy the benevolence of this Hon’ble Court. An errant litigant cannot get the liberty of this court," the application states.Rathee's counsel told the Court that Nakhua's affidavit cites the old Indian Evidence Act instead of the new law, namely the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).Senior Advocate Varma has maintained that the matter ought to be dismissed considering Nakhua's conduct. In an earlier December 2025 hearing, he had pointed out 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," Varma submitted..Advocates Gurdeep Singh, Pratishtha Dahiya, Siddhi Sahoo and Shantanu Parmar also appeared for Dhruv Rathee.
