The long-standing unrest surrounding the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) examinations has entered a decisive legal phase, turning a digital exposé into a courtroom confrontation with far-reaching consequences. At the centre of this storm is YouTuber and educator Nitish Rajput, whose detailed video questioning SSC exam operations has led to a ₹2.5 crore defamation lawsuit filed by Eduquity Technologies Pvt. Ltd., one of the private firms involved in conducting SSC examinations.

What began as a data-driven critique of examination governance has now evolved into a national debate touching upon transparency in public recruitment, the accountability of private vendors, and the legal risks faced by independent digital creators. For millions of government job aspirants who depend on SSC exams as a pathway to secure employment, the case has become emblematic of larger systemic concerns they have raised for years.

How the Nitish Rajput–SSC Controversy Began

The controversy traces back to a video released by Nitish Rajput on his YouTube channel, where he examined the functioning of SSC examinations. Drawing upon Right to Information (RTI) replies, official tender documents, and publicly accessible records, Rajput questioned how examination vendors are selected and how consistently the rules governing these contracts are applied.

Rather than targeting individuals, his analysis focused on administrative and procedural patterns—particularly frequent changes in tender conditions, eligibility criteria, and operational rules. Rajput argued that these shifts, when viewed alongside repeated exam disruptions, raised serious questions about transparency and institutional robustness.

The video quickly resonated with SSC aspirants, many of whom have long complained about last-minute schedule changes, technical failures, server crashes, poorly managed exam centres, and infrastructure shortcomings across multiple exam cycles.

What Did Nitish Rajput Allege in His Video?

In his video, Rajput scrutinised the tendering process used by the SSC for outsourcing exam operations. He questioned whether changes in tender conditions were implemented transparently and whether the vendor selection process followed consistent and fair standards.

According to media reports, he also highlighted what he described as discrepancies related to vendor eligibility and turnover figures, basing his analysis on RTI responses and public documents. Rajput suggested that repeated mismanagement in SSC exams could not be dismissed as isolated incidents, but instead pointed to deeper structural and administrative weaknesses.

Importantly, Rajput maintained that his video relied entirely on verifiable records and reflected concerns already voiced by aspirants over several years. He positioned the content as public-interest commentary rather than accusation or personal attack.

Why Eduquity Technologies Filed a ₹2.5 Crore Defamation Case

Eduquity Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a Noida-based human resource consulting firm involved in conducting SSC examinations, responded by filing a ₹2.5 crore defamation suit in a Delhi court. According to court filings cited in media reports, the company alleged that the statements made in Rajput’s video were misleading, incorrect, and damaging to its professional reputation and business interests.

In addition to monetary compensation, Eduquity has sought court directions for the removal of the video from social media platforms. The firm has denied the allegations raised in the video and framed the dispute as a matter of reputational harm rather than a debate over examination reforms.

Rajput, however, has refused to take down the video, stating that it is based on official records and publicly available information, and therefore falls within the scope of fair analysis and public interest discussion.

Who Is Nitish Rajput?

Nitish Rajput is a prominent Indian YouTuber, educator, and digital content creator known for producing research-based explainer videos on public policy, governance, history, and social issues. He was born on October 4, 1989, in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and spent his early years in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand, before his family relocated to Delhi.

He holds a B.Tech degree in Information Technology from Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh. Over the years, Rajput has built a reputation for breaking down complex topics using RTI replies, government documents, and verified public data.

His content enjoys strong traction among students and government job aspirants preparing for competitive exams such as SSC, UPSC, and various state-level recruitments. Rajput often emphasises that his work is intended to inform and educate, not to promote political agendas.

The SSC controversy has significantly amplified his national visibility, placing him at the centre of discussions around transparency, freedom of expression, and institutional accountability.

Nitish Rajput’s Reach, Influence, and Net Worth

Nitish Rajput commands a substantial digital following, with nearly 8.13 million subscribers on YouTube and around 3.5 million followers on Instagram. He is also the founder of Pinega Infosystem.

While his exact net worth is not publicly disclosed, estimates place Nitish Rajput’s net worth between ₹86.79 crore and ₹127.92 crore (approximately $987,500 to $1.46 million). YouTube revenue forms a significant portion of his income, supplemented by brand collaborations and sponsorships.

His YouTube profile description states that he believes digital tools can be used to inform and educate people collectively, helping them form opinions backed by facts rather than speculation.

In 2024, Rajput also revealed that his YouTube channel was blocked in Pakistan amid heightened India-Pakistan tensions. Sharing a screenshot on X, he wrote, “Pakistan has blocked my YouTube in Pakistan.”

Why This Video and Case Matter to SSC Aspirants

The legal dispute has struck a deep chord among SSC aspirants, many of whom see Rajput’s video as a reflection of their own lived experiences with exam disruptions. For years, aspirants have raised concerns about technical glitches, scheduling delays, abrupt rule changes, and logistical failures during SSC examinations.

Following the filing of the defamation suit, several student organisations and aspirant groups have reportedly intensified online mobilisation. Some groups are exploring legal avenues to seek broader judicial scrutiny of the SSC recruitment framework, including vendor appointment procedures and exam governance mechanisms.

There is also speculation among aspirants that the matter could eventually reach the Supreme Court, drawing parallels with earlier cases where courts intervened in large-scale exam irregularities.

The Legal and Judicial Angle Under Scrutiny

As the case proceeds in the Delhi court, legal experts are closely watching its implications. At the heart of the dispute lies a critical question: how do defamation laws apply to digital commentary that relies on RTI data and official public documents?

The court will decide whether the video remains accessible online and whether Rajput’s content constitutes defamation or protected public-interest analysis. The outcome could set an important precedent for independent educators, journalists, and digital creators who scrutinise public institutions using official records.

What This Case Means Beyond One Lawsuit

The Nitish Rajput–Eduquity dispute has expanded far beyond a single defamation claim. It has ignited a broader conversation about transparency in India’s competitive examination ecosystem, the role of private vendors in public recruitment, and the boundaries of free expression in the digital age.

For aspirants, the case symbolises a long-standing demand for fairness, predictability, and trust in SSC examinations—an institution that shapes the careers of millions of young Indians.

What Happens Next?

The Delhi court will continue to hear arguments from both sides, with the legal outcome still uncertain. Regardless of the verdict, the controversy has already placed renewed scrutiny on SSC operations, vendor accountability, and exam governance.

Whether through judicial intervention or policy reform, the case is likely to influence future debates on recruitment transparency, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities of public institutions and their private partners.

For now, aspirants, educators, and legal observers alike remain closely tuned in—aware that the implications of this case may extend well beyond one YouTuber, one company, or one examination system.

With inputs from agencies

Image Source: Multiple agencies

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Vygr Media.