LokVox

PoliticsCourts

Delhi court issues bailable warrants against Dhruv Rathee in 2018 'BJP IT Cell' defamation case

A Saket magistrate acted after a notice could not be served at the YouTuber's locked Gurugram home. The complainant says Rathee's recent trip to India for the protests made service possible.

From the editorial desk · New DelhiPublished
YouTuber Dhruv Rathee (file photo)
YouTuber Dhruv Rathee (file photo)Photo: NewsClickin / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0

Key points

  1. Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain at Saket issued bailable warrants against Dhruv Rathee.
  2. The case is over Rathee's May 2018 video "BJP IT Cell Part 2".
  3. The matter was brought forward and is now listed for 31 October.

A Delhi court has issued bailable warrants against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a criminal defamation case filed against him in 2018 over his video “BJP IT Cell Part 2”.

Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket courts issued the warrants after being told that a notice sent to Rathee’s residence in Gurugram could not be served because the premises were found locked. The warrants are meant to secure his appearance in the proceedings.

The complaint was filed by Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey, who says the video, published in May 2018, made false and defamatory claims about him. The video dealt with allegations that the BJP’s IT cell had tried to bribe a man into withdrawing his claim that it spread fake news. Arvind Kejriwal, who shared the video, was also named in the case. He later apologised before the Supreme Court, but the case against Rathee went on.

The complainant told the court that service of summons had been held up for years because Rathee lives abroad, in Germany, and argued that he had recently been in India for a protest. Rathee was detained by Gurugram Police on 10 October before he could join the demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and was released in the early hours of the next day.

The court had issued fresh summons to Rathee earlier this week. The case had been listed for 20 November, but at the complainant’s request it will now be heard on 31 October.

The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court.