Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua recently sought time before a Saket District Court to correct another defect noted in an affidavit filed by him in his defamation suit against Dhruv Rathee [Suresh Karamshi Nakhua vs. Dhruv Rathee].
Rathee, meanwhile, has filed an application seeking the dismissal of the defamation suit on the ground that Nakhua was repeatedly 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," Rathee has argued in his application, filed through advocate Nakul Gandhi.
The matter was taken up on November 14 by District Judge Gunjan Gupta who observed that Nakhua had sought time to correct a defect concerning requirements under the new criminal laws when it comes to filing electronic evidence.
"Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that in view of the objection raised by the defendant by way of the present application, he be allowed some time to file the correct certificate in terms of Section 63 (admissibility of electronic record) of the BSA, 2023," the court observed.
Nakhua's plea for time to rectify the defects in his affidavit was strongly opposed by Rathee's counsel, who argued that a lot of time had already been given for Nakhua to file a proper affidavit.
The court eventually posted the matter on February 4, 2025, by when Nakhua is expected to reply to Rathee's application for the dismissal of the suit.
The court has also asked the counsel to argue on the legislative intent and purpose of an expert certificate under the new law (Section 63 BSA) and if its non-submission is a material defect warranting the dismissal of the suit.
"It has been six months since the provisions came into effect. There must be some judgments on this certificate. I would like to see what are the implications of this particular section," the court said.
Nakhua, the spokesperson for the Mumbai unit of the BJP, has sued Rathee for defamation over a July 7 YouTube video on July 7 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.
Nakhua argued that because of the allegations made by Rathee, he (Nakhua) faced widespread condemnation and ridicule.
“The repercussions of such false allegations are manifold, extending well beyond the realm of the video itself to irrevocably impact both the personal and professional domains of the Plaintiff, leaving scars that may never fully heal," Nakhua contended.
During a hearing of the matter in September, 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.
When the matter was heard on November 14, however, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma appeared for Rathee and argued that Nakhua's affidavit was still defective.
Varma explained that the affidavit has been filed under the old Indian Evidence Act instead of the new law, namely the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Under the new law, there is an additional mandatory requirement to support electronic media with an expert’s certificate, the court was told.
Senior Advocate Varma argued that when the defamation suit is rooted in a video, the video cannot be looked at without the correct affidavit.
Advocate Raghav Awasthi appeared for Nakhua.
The matter is slated to be head next in February 2025.
Advocates Mujeeb, Arindam Bhardwaj, Balram and Shantanu also appeared for Rathee.
[Read order]