Dhruv Rathee accuses BJP leader Suresh Nakhua of hiding facts in defamation case
New Delhi: YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has alleged before a Delhi court that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suresh Nakhua, who is suing him for defamation, has a history of using abusive language against public figures and is attempting to deceive the court to secure a favorable order.
The defamation suit, filed by Nakhua, centers on a video by Rathee titled “My Reply to Godi Youtubers | Elvish Yadav | Dhruv Rathee.” In his response submitted through Advocate Nakul Gandhi, Rathee pointed to past tweets by Nakhua, where he allegedly used derogatory language against prominent individuals such as Sonia Gandhi, Barkha Dutt, and Suhel Seth. Rathee argued that his reference to Nakhua as a “hinsak gaalibaaz” (abusive troll) was based on these tweets.
Rathee’s response also accused Nakhua of intentionally withholding key visual evidence from the court. "The Plaintiff [Nakhua] has deliberately concealed the visual representations of the alleged defamatory portion in the impugned video from the knowledge of this Hon’ble Court," Rathee’s reply stated, emphasizing that these visuals are crucial in assessing the validity of Nakhua's claims.
Nakhua's legal team, represented by Advocates Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma, has sought an injunction to prevent Rathee from posting any content that could harm Nakhua's reputation. In contrast, Rathee contended that granting such an injunction would amount to an impermissible "super injunction" or "gag order."
The case, originally listed for hearing on August 16, has been postponed to August 27 due to the judge's absence.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
HC to decide if gram panchayat members can continue in Manipur post tenure: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday said the high court would decide whether the elected gram panchayat members, whose five-year tenure was over in Manipur, were entitled to continue in their posts in the event of the appointment of an administrative committee or an administrator.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said it would like to have the benefit of the view of the high court in the matter and set a three-month time frame to adjudicate the legal question.
"The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the elected member of the Gram Panchayat whose five-year tenure is over was entitled to continue as members of the gram panchayat in the event of appointment of administrative committee or administrator, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act of 1994," the bench noted.
The Manipur government’s counsel said the state could not hold panchayat elections due to the unprecedented violence.
"Since, we would like to have the advantage of the opinion of the high court, we dispose of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits, with the request to the chief justice of Manipur High Court to post the main case before a division bench at the earliest. We further request the division bench, before whom the matter is listed, to provide expeditious hearing with an endeavour to resolve the controversy within three months," the bench said.
The bench noted that provision of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act was amended to substitute the word "cease" with the word "continue" with respect to the tenure of the elected members of the gram panchayat.
The petitioners have challenged a high court order and submitted that since elections in gram panchayat could not be held in Manipur for various reasons, the previously elected members of the panchayat were entitled to continue as per the amended Section 22 (3) of 1994 Act.
Section 22 deals with the power of deputy commissioner to appoint an administrative committee or an administrator for a period of six months, which will then oversee the election.
Section 22 (3) of the law says once the administrative committee or an administrator is appointed by the deputy commissioner, the elected members of earlier gram panchayat shall cease to exist.
The top court said what has been challenged before it was an interlocutory order of the high court and the main petition in which the question of law that had been raised was still pending.
The original petitioners before the high court were elected representatives at the fifth general elections for gram panchayats and the zilla parishads who sought a direction to continue in the office beyond the period of five years as stipulated by law as elections were last held in 2017.
They sought to continue as panchayat members till the time the state election commission notified the election for the sixth general elections for gram panchayats and zilla parishads.
On February 29, last year, the high court in its interim order gave liberty to Manipur government to appoint an administrative committee for each gram panchayat and zilla parishad in accordance with law and the provision of the Act.
