- Dhruv Rathee gets fresh summons in 2018 defamation case.
- Summons follow his detention during CEC protest in Delhi.
- Another defamation suit filed over Lord Ram video controversy.
A Delhi court issued fresh summons against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee at his Gurugram residence in connection with a criminal defamation suit filed in 2018 by Vikas Pandey over a video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part 2'. This follows the YouTuber's arrival in India to participate in ongoing protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over Special Intensive Revision irregularities.
Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket District Court passed the order on October 12, scheduling the matter for hearing on October 17.
Appearing for Pandey, Advocate Samaksh Sharma informed the court that Rathee ordinarily resides in Austria and had travelled to India for the Cockroach Janta Party protests in Delhi. Sharma noted that fresh summons were necessary to ensure prompt service of process.
This development comes days after the YouTuber was detained by the Delhi Police ahead of a CJP protest at Jantar Mantar on October 10, an incident he described as "kidnapping".
Rathee alleged that approximately 50 Delhi Police officers arrived at his home on Saturday and took him into custody. According to Rathee, several plainclothes officers arrived at around 7:00 AM, forced their way inside after his mother opened the door, entered his bedroom, dragged him out, and refused to present identification while arguing aggressively with his parents.
In response, Delhi Police stated that the action was preventive, citing a lack of permission for the protests in Delhi. Rathee had also participated in a CJP protest in Bengaluru two days prior to his detention.
Hello @DelhiPolice, Can you tell the people of India, how much taxpayer money are you wasting on doing illegal surveillance on me? Just give a rough estimate :) https://t.co/vuQrY38C7Z
— Dhruv Rathee (@dhruv_rathee) October 14, 2026
Rathee has alleged that plainclothes officers in unmarked vehicles are following him. In a post on X, Rathee wrote, "Hello Delhi Police,
Can you tell the people of India how much taxpayer money you are wasting on doing illegal surveillance on me?
Just give a rough estimate :)".
He claimed police tracked his movements and threatened renewed detention if he approached the protest site ahead of another planned demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar on October 16. Delhi Police have not yet responded to the allegation.
ALSO READ: 'Cops Following Everywhere': Dhruv Rathee Alleges Unofficial House Arrest After Delhi Detention
What is defamation case about?
The complainant, Vikas Pandey, managed a social media page titled 'I Support Narendra Modi'. Rathee's video alleged that Pandey was a member of the BJP IT cell and had offered Rs 50 lakh through a middleman to one Mahavir Prasad to retract allegations that the organisation spreads fake news.
Pandey also filed a complaint against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal, then the Chief Minister of Delhi, for re-sharing the video on X (formerly Twitter) in 2018.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the summons against Kejriwal, observing that "the large social media following of a chief minister of a state undoubtedly implies a wider reach, making any retweet a form of public endorsement or acknowledgement."
Kejriwal challenged the order in the Supreme Court. On February 26, 2024, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta stayed the trial court proceedings against him. "I can say this much: I made a mistake by retweeting," Kejriwal's lawyer told the Supreme Court. However, proceedings against Rathee have continued.
In a separate legal matter, another defamation suit has been filed against Rathee at Delhi's Saket Court over a video allegedly claiming that Lord Ram and Goddess Sita consumed meat and alcohol during their exile.
The hearing was adjourned to November 5 after technical issues during video conferencing prevented the completion of submissions by the petitioner's senior counsel, according to Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Amita Sachdeva.
Sachdeva stated, "Some time ago, Dhruv Rathee published a video claiming that Lord Shri Ram and Mother Sita consumed meat and alcohol during their exile. We took the matter regarding that video to the Delhi High Court, and the Delhi High Court directed the Govt of India to have the video removed."
"On July 15, 2026, the Govt of India directed YouTube to take down the video, after which that petition was disposed of. Following the disposal of the petition, someone extracted a three-minute segment from that 21-minute video and re-uploaded it."
The petitioners have approached the Delhi High Court again, receiving permission to initiate fresh legal proceedings against Rathee.
The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on November 5.