An eight-year-old criminal defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has taken a fresh turn after his recent visit to India in connection with the protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
On October 12, 2026, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Rahul Jain of Delhi’s Saket Courts ordered fresh summons to be issued to Rathee in the criminal defamation complaint filed by Vikas Sankrityayan, popularly known as Vikas Pandey. The complaint, registered as CT Case No. 5786/2018, concerns Rathee’s controversial video titled ‘BJP IT Cell Part 2’.
A Saket court has ordered fresh summons to YouTuber Dhruv Rathee at a Gurugram address in a case filed by Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey. The court allowed dasti service, permitting the complainant to accompany the process server. The next hearing is scheduled for October 17
— IANS (@ians_india) October 14, 2026
The court also permitted dasti summons, allowing the complainant to accompany the process server to facilitate service. Rathee has been directed to appear before the court on October 17, 2026, according to the summons issued on the same date.
The development comes after years of unsuccessful attempts to serve Rathee with summons, with the complainant’s side citing his ordinary residence in Austria as a reason for the delay.
Court records attempts to serve Rathee since 2019
The application was moved by advocate Samaksh Sharma, appearing for the complainant. He sought preponement of the matter, submitting that Rathee ordinarily resides in Austria but was presently in India in connection with the CJP protest.
According to the October 12 order, Sharma told the court that service of summons had remained delayed for several years because Rathee resided abroad. He sought fresh summons so that steps could be taken promptly while the YouTuber was in India.
The court recorded:
“From the available record, it is clear that the complainant has been trying to serve the accused no. 1 for several years as the accused was initially summoned vide order dated 23.07.2019.”
Counsel further informed the court that he had information that Rathee was residing at an address in Sector 56, Gurugram, Haryana.
Taking note of these submissions, the magistrate directed that fresh summons be issued to Rathee at the address provided by the complainant and ordered that the process fee be filed within two days. The court official responsible for processing judicial orders was also directed to issue the process on a daily basis.
The complainant’s counsel subsequently requested dasti summons. The court allowed the request and recorded:
“Issue dasti summons as per law. The complainant is at liberty to accompany the process server. Be put up for 17.10.2026.”
The summons issued on October 12 directs Rathee to appear before the court on October 17, either in person or through counsel, as applicable.
According to the complainant’s side, the summons has since been served on Rathee at his residence. However, the October 12 order itself records the issuance of fresh and dasti summons, not completed service. The process server’s report and the court’s subsequent proceedings will establish the formal status of service.
What is the ‘BJP IT Cell Part 2’ defamation case?
The dispute originated in 2018, when Rathee published content accusing the operator of the social media page ‘I Support Narendra Modi’ of functioning like ‘BJP IT Cell Part 2’.
Pandey, who is associated with the page, subsequently initiated criminal defamation proceedings over the allegations.
The complaint concerns claims made in the video about Pandey’s alleged position in the BJP’s IT cell and an alleged offer of Rs 50 lakh to Mahavir Prasad to retract allegations relating to the circulation of lies and fake news against the ruling party’s IT cell. These are allegations underlying the complaint, not findings established by the October 12 order.
The controversy also drew in Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had retweeted Rathee’s content.
Kejriwal’s involvement subsequently became the subject of separate proceedings within the same broader defamation dispute, bringing the controversy into the national spotlight.
Kejriwal admitted making a mistake by retweeting Rathee’s video
In February 2024, Kejriwal’s counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, told the Supreme Court that his client acknowledged making a mistake by retweeting Rathee’s video.
“I can say this much that I made a mistake by retweeting,” Singhvi submitted before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
The statement came while the Supreme Court was considering Kejriwal’s challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld the summons issued to him in the criminal defamation case.
The Supreme Court asked the complainant whether the proceedings against Kejriwal could be closed in view of the admission. The complainant’s counsel agreed to take instructions on the possibility of closure, and the court directed the trial court not to take up the proceedings involving Kejriwal until March 11, 2024.
The episode brought renewed attention to the legal implications of amplifying defamatory material through social media.
However, Kejriwal’s admission concerned his own decision to retweet the content. It was not a judicial determination of Rathee’s guilt, nor did it automatically terminate the proceedings against the original creator of the video.
The complaint against Rathee has continued before the magistrate’s court, where the immediate procedural hurdle has been the service of summons.
Rathee’s India visit brings the pending case back into focus
Rathee’s recent presence in India in connection with the CJP protest provided the complainant’s side with an opportunity to seek fresh steps in the case.
The court order specifically records counsel’s submission that Rathee was in India in connection with the protest and that his ordinary residence in Austria had contributed to the delay in serving summons.
The magistrate did not decide the merits of the allegations against Rathee. Instead, the court ordered fresh summons at the Gurugram address supplied by the complainant and permitted dasti service to facilitate the process.
The case is now scheduled to be taken up on October 17, 2026.
That hearing could establish whether the summons have been formally served and what further directions the court issues. The proceedings remain pending, and the allegations of criminal defamation have yet to be adjudicated on their merits.
