In 2018, Dhruv Rathee posted a video on his YouTube channel that alleged the BJP attempted to bribe Vikas Pandey. The claim became the catalyst for a criminal defamation case that has resurfaced after some time.
Vikas Pandey responded by filing a criminal defamation suit against Rathee. The suit relates to a video posted on Rathee's YouTube channel.
The Delhi court attempted to serve Rathee with a notice in Gurugram, a city in the neighboring state of Haryana, but he was not available at the time. This procedural hiccup delayed the case’s progress and set the stage for later summonses.
This date will determine whether Rathee will appear voluntarily, be taken into custody under the warrant, or seek bail.
On 12 October 2026, the Delhi court issued a fresh summons to Rathee, reviving the dormant case. The summons is a formal demand for the accused to appear before the magistrate.
Five days later, on 17 October 2026, the same court issued a bailable warrant against Rathee. The warrant was issued in connection with the 2018 defamation case. Rathee is currently staying at a residence in Gurugram, Haryana.
The court’s records on the same day also mention a non–bailable warrant issued to Dhruv Raithatha, a name that appears to be a typographical variation of Rathee’s. While the non–bailable warrant indicates a more severe charge, the simultaneous issuance of a bailable warrant underscores the procedural complexities that can arise when a case is revived after some time.
Alongside the warrant, the court granted Rathee’s application for an early hearing. An early hearing can accelerate the judicial timeline, allowing both parties to present arguments sooner than the standard schedule.
The court has scheduled further proceedings for 31 October 2026. This date will determine whether Rathee will appear voluntarily, be taken into custody under the warrant, or seek bail. The hearing will also address whether the video’s allegations constitute false statements that merit criminal sanction.
Current reports place Rathee at a residence in Gurugram, Haryana, indicating that he is within Indian jurisdiction. Another source notes that he is presently in Germany. The discrepancy highlights the challenges of tracking a digital creator who frequently travels and operates across borders.
The BJP IT cell filed a case against Dhruv Raithatha for posting defamatory videos.
Rathee’s case exemplifies the tension between India’s vibrant online commentary ecosystem and the legal tools available to political actors. The outcome of the 31 October hearing could influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
As of mid–October 2026, the Delhi court has issued a bailable warrant, listed an early hearing, and set a date for further proceedings. Whether Rathee will appear voluntarily, secure bail, or contest the warrant remains to be seen. What is clear is that a video posted some years ago has resurfaced in a courtroom, reminding digital creators that their words can have legal consequences long after they are published.