YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, against whom a Saket court in Delhi has issued bailable warrants in the 2018 criminal defamation complaint filed by Vikas Sankrityayan over the "BJP IT Cell Part 2" video

A Delhi Court on Saturday issued bailable warrants against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a criminal defamation complaint that has been pending against him since 2018 over his video titled "BJP IT Cell Part 2".

The complaint, registered as Ct. Cases 5786/2018, was filed by Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey. It is the same case in which former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had retweeted the video, later tendered an apology before the Supreme Court. Proceedings against Rathee, as the creator of the video, continued before the trial court.

The warrants come days after the same court took steps to secure Rathee's appearance through summons. By an order dated October 12, 2026, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Rahul Jain of Saket Court had directed fresh summons to Rathee at an address in Sector 56, Gurugram, and allowed dasti summons, recording, "From the available record, it is clear that the complainant has been trying to served the accused no. 1 since last several years as the accused was initially summoned vide order dated 23.07.2019."

The complainant was given liberty to accompany the process server, and the matter was put up for October 17, 2026. In that application, the complainant's counsel had submitted that Rathee "ordinary resides in Austria" and that service had been delayed for several years on that account.

The case was initiated by Vikas Sankrityan, also known as Vikas Pandey, a purported supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and founder of the social media page 'I Support Narendra Modi'. The video by Rathee accused Pandey of being the second-in-command of the BJP IT cell and offering Rs. 50 lakh to someone named Mahavir Prasad to retract allegations of spreading lies and fake news against the ruling party's IT cell.

The application was moved by Advocate Samaksh Sharma, appearing for the complainant. As recorded in the order, he sought pre-ponement of the matter "on the ground that the accused no. 1 (Dhruv Rathee) ordinary resides in Austria and is presently in India with respect to CJP Protest."

He also sought fresh summons "so that prompt steps for service can be taken as he submits that the service of summons upon the accused has remained delayed for last several years due to the fact the accused resides in Austria."

After hearing the submissions and perused the record, the Court observed, "From the available record, it is clear that the complainant has been trying to served the accused no. 1 since last several years as the accused was initially summoned vide order dated 23.07.2019."

Counsel informed the Court that he had "information that accused no.1 is residing at the address" in Sector 56, Gurugram, Haryana. Acting on that submission, the Court directed, "In view of the submissions of the counsel for the complainant, let fresh summons be issued to accused no. 1 at the address mentioned above. PF be filed within two days from today."

The Court also directed that "Ahlmad is directed to issue the process on daily basis."

During the same hearing, the complainant's counsel requested dasti summons, that is, summons handed over to the party for service rather than left solely to the court's ordinary process.

The Court recorded, "At this stage, Ld. counsel for the complainant has requested for dasti summons. Heard. Allowed. 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 the same day, addressed to "Dhruv Rathee" at the Gurugram address, requires him to appear before the Court on October 17, 2026.

It reads as :"You are to appear before this Court on 17.10.2026 … in person (or through counsel, as the case may be). Let there be no default in complying with this order."

According to the complainant's side, the summons has since been served on Rathee at his residence.

The October 12 order itself records only that fresh and dasti summons were issued. Whether service has been effected will be a matter for the Court to note from the process server's report when the case is taken up on October 17.

Kejriwal's apology for retweet did not end proceedings against Rathee

The complaint is the same one in which former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had retweeted the "BJP IT Cell Part 2" video, tendered an apology before the Supreme Court in February 2024, for doing so. The proceedings against Rathee, as the original creator of the video, continued thereafter at the magistrate's court, where the question of service on him has now come to the fore.

Case Title: Vikas Sankrityayan @ Vikas Pandey v. Dhruv Rathee & Ors

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Rahul Jain

Order Date: October 17, 2026

Tags: