A Delhi court on October 31 issued fresh bailable warrants against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in an eight-year-old criminal defamation case filed by Vikas Sanskrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey, over a 2018 YouTube video. Judicial Magistrate First Class Rahul Jain of the Saket Courts issued the warrant after an earlier warrant could not be executed because it had been sent to an incorrect address in Austria instead of Rathee’s Gurugram residence.
During the hearing, the complainant’s counsel informed the court that Rathee had already left India and was residing overseas. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 23. The fresh warrant is a procedural step to secure Rathee’s appearance and does not establish his guilt in the defamation case.
Warrant Sent To Gurugram
The latest order follows a series of attempts to serve Rathee with court process. On October 12, the Saket Court issued fresh summons at a Sector 56 address in Gurugram after the complainant sought an expedited hearing. The complainant’s lawyer, Samaksh Sharma, told the court that Rathee ordinarily resides overseas and was then in India in connection with protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). This was a submission made by the complainant’s side and should not be treated as an independently established reason for Rathee’s visit.
On October 17, the court issued a bailable warrant after a process server reported that the premises at Rathee’s Gurugram residence were locked while attempting to serve the summons. The subsequent warrant, however, could not be executed after the court noted that it had been issued to an incorrect address in Austria.
On October 31, the court therefore directed that a fresh bailable warrant be issued to Rathee’s Gurugram address. The court also questioned the urgency of issuing another warrant after being informed that Rathee had already left India, asking, “What is the logic of the hurry now?” The detailed order from the latest hearing is awaited.
What The Case Is About
The criminal defamation complaint dates back to 2018 and concerns Rathee’s YouTube video ‘BJP IT Cell Part II’, uploaded in May that year. According to Pandey’s complaint, Rathee alleged that members of the BJP IT Cell had attempted to bribe him to defame Rathee. Pandey disputed the allegations and approached the court, claiming that the statements were false, malicious and harmed his reputation. The court initially summoned Rathee on July 23, 2019, but the proceedings remained pending amid difficulties in serving him while he was living overseas.
Kejriwal’s Separate Proceedings
The 2018 video also became part of separate legal proceedings involving then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal after he shared it on social media. Pandey initiated proceedings against Kejriwal as well as Rathee. Kejriwal later acknowledged before the Supreme Court that sharing the video had been a mistake. Proceedings concerning Kejriwal were dealt with separately, while the original complaint against Rathee, as the alleged creator and publisher of the video, continued before the Saket Court.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The case highlights the difficult balance between freedom of expression and an individual’s right to protect their reputation, particularly when political claims made online can reach millions of people almost instantly. Serious allegations should be supported by evidence, while courts must be allowed to determine whether disputed statements cross the legal threshold for defamation.
At the same time, the issuance of a bailable warrant should not be mistaken for a finding of guilt. As the case moves forward, can India create enough space for robust political criticism while ensuring that public discourse remains responsible, evidence-based and respectful of individual rights?
Also Read: Delhi Mangolpuri Factory Fire: 4 Dead, 2 Injured As Massive Blaze Engulfs Shoe Unit
