The ongoing controversy surrounding Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examinations has now entered the courtroom after a defamation case was filed against YouTuber Nitish Rajput by Eduquity Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company involved in conducting SSC exams.
According to media reports, the dispute began after Rajput published a video raising questions about the examination process, vendor appointments and operational transparency. The company has responded by filing a ₹2.5 crore defamation suit in a Delhi court, claiming the content harmed its reputation and presented misleading claims.
Reports suggest Rajput relied on RTI responses and publicly available documents while discussing changes in tender conditions, vendor selection and exam management practices. His video highlighted concerns about whether such changes could affect fairness and transparency in large-scale recruitment examinations.
Eduquity Technologies, in its court submission, has denied all allegations. The firm has argued that the video contains inaccurate statements and has asked the court to order its removal from social media platforms along with compensation for reputational damage.
Nitish Rajput, known for creating research-driven content on social and public issues, was born in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and studied engineering at Gautam Buddha University. He later moved to Delhi and built an online audience through analytical videos on governance, policy and current affairs.
The issue has drawn strong reactions from SSC aspirants, many of whom have previously raised concerns about technical glitches, scheduling delays and logistical challenges during examinations. Following the legal case, student communities have reportedly intensified online discussions and are considering seeking judicial review of recruitment systems and vendor selection processes.
Also Read: Retrospective Tax Clarifications Spark Debate Over Fairness
The matter is now under consideration in a Delhi court. Reports indicate Rajput has not agreed to remove the video, maintaining that his claims are based on public records. The case has again placed the spotlight on transparency and accountability in public recruitment examinations, an area that has faced scrutiny in the past.
