YouTuber Dhruv Rathee faces court warrants over 2018 video targeting BJP IT cell

Bailable warrants issued against Dhruv Rathee in defamation case linked to 2018 video

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has issued bailable warrants against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a 2018 defamation case, news agency PTI reported.The case stems from a video published by Rathee in May 2018, in which he allegedly claimed that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Information Technology cell had attempted to bribe a man to defame him.

The video was posted on Rathee’s social media account and later retweeted by Arvind Kejriwal, who was then the Delhi chief minister.The complainant, Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey, subsequently initiated defamation proceedings against Rathee and Kejriwal over the video and its circulation.Earlier, on October 12, Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket court ordered fresh summons to Rathee after the complainant submitted that repeated attempts to serve him had remained unsuccessful since the proceedings began.The complainant’s counsel, advocate Samaksh Sharma, told the court that the summons had remained unserved for several years as Rathee primarily lived abroad. The court was informed, however, that Rathee was then in India and residing at an address in Gurugram, Haryana.

The magistrate noted that Rathee had first been summoned on July 23, 2019, and that the complainant had continued to pursue service of the summons.

The court allowed Pandey to accompany the process server and directed him to deposit the process fee within two days. The next hearing was scheduled for October 17, 2026.Separately, Rathee is facing a defamation suit before the Saket court over a video that allegedly claimed Lord Ram and Goddess Sita consumed meat and alcohol during their exile.The complainants, who identified themselves as Hindu devotees, alleged that the video hurt their religious sentiments. They have also sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Google from restoring, hosting, uploading, sharing or disseminating the video, or any video with identical or similar content, after notice and verification of the URL, during the pendency of the suit.