A Delhi court has issued bailable warrants against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a defamation case dating back to 2018. The case arises from a complaint alleging that a video published by Rathee contained defamatory allegations against Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey.
Judicial Magistrate First Class Rahul Jain of the Saket Courts issued the warrants after the court was informed that summons had been served, but the premises where Rathee was expected to be found were locked. The development follows the court's earlier decision to issue fresh summons after the complainant sought an expedited hearing.
Background of the Defamation Case
The complaint concerns a video titled “BJP IT Cell Part II”, which Rathee allegedly published and circulated in 2018. According to the complainant, the video contained false and defamatory allegations against him.
The complainant initiated legal proceedings against Rathee and Arvind Kejriwal, who had reportedly shared the video on social media while serving as Delhi's Chief Minister.
The complainant's counsel argued that repeated attempts to serve court notices had been unsuccessful over several years because Rathee ordinarily resides abroad. The court was also informed that Rathee was believed to be in India and residing at an address in Gurugram, Haryana.
Court Schedules Next Hearing
The court issued fresh summons earlier in the week after allowing the complainant's request to advance the hearing, which had previously been scheduled for November 20, 2026. Following the reported difficulty in serving the summons, the court proceeded to issue bailable warrants.
The matter has now been listed for October 31, 2026.
The issuance of bailable warrants is a procedural step intended to secure the accused's appearance before the court. It does not establish the truth of the allegations or amount to a finding of guilt. The defamation proceedings remain pending.
Case significance: The matter highlights the procedural challenges courts may encounter when attempting to serve judicial process in cases involving individuals who ordinarily reside outside India. It also illustrates the legal consequences that can arise from allegations of defamatory content circulated through digital platforms.