Read Time: 05 minutes
Gaurav Bhatia highlighted that the incident, where his turban was snatched by a lawyer amidst a strike in the presence of the judge, was misrepresented. He contended that his portrayal as a victim of violence and humiliation was damaging his credibility as a Senior Advocate and BJP spokesperson
The Delhi High Court has issued notification to several YouTube channels and social media handles in a defamation case brought forth by Senior Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Gaurav Bhatia. The case stemmed from an incident at a Noida court where Sr Adv Bhatia encountered a physical altercation.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna deemed it impractical to grant an ex parte order given the unfortunate circumstances, acknowledged even by the Supreme Court. Notices were thus issued, allowing the concerned parties to respond including YouTube channels like Article 19 India (run by journalist Naveen Kumar), The News Launcher, BBI News, and comedian Rajeev Nigam received notices. Likewise, numerous Twitter handles including Sandeep Singh, Vijay Yadav, NETAFLIX, Sunita Jadhav, a parody account of actor Pankaj Tripathi, Dawood Nadaf, Drkhatra, and Virus Baba INDIA Wala were served notices as well.
In his defamation lawsuit, Bhatia highlighted an incident on March 20, 2024, at the court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, District Court, Noida, where his turban was snatched by a lawyer in the presence of the judge. Stating that the incident was 'misrepresented', he cited videos from the mentioned channels, arguing that they contain defamatory content with hundreds of thousands of views. The dispute involved the Supreme Court Bar Association leaders over the handling of a case concerning the mistreatment of senior lawyer Gaurav Bhatia.
The disagreement arose when the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Adish Aggarwala proposed closing the case after the Greater Noida lawyer body expressed regret for the incident. However, former SCBA president Vikas Singh opposed this motion, insisting on holding those responsible accountable.
Advocates Raghav Awasthi representing Bhatia argued that the videos contained baseless allegations, misrepresenting true events documented in the Supreme Court's order, which took suo motu cognizance of the incident. Awasthi emphasized that some videos could potentially incite violence against Bhatia and refuted claims suggesting his representation of influencer Elvish Yadav in Noida. Furthermore, he stated that the malicious descriptions aimed to tarnish his character and incite disdain were baseless and reprehensible.
Advocate Aditya Gupta representing Naveen Kumar accepted notice on behalf of Article 19 India.
Case Title: Gaurav Bhatia v Naveen Kumar & Ors.
Please Login or Register
