A Delhi court issued new bailable warrants for YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in a 2018 defamation case filed by Vikas Sanskrityayan.

The case stems from a May 2018 YouTube video titled "BJP IT Cell Part 2," in which Dhruv Rathee alleged that the BJP's IT wing tried to bribe social media activist Vikas Sanskrityayan (alias Vikas Pandey), founder of the "I Support Narendra Modi" page, to malign him. Sanskrityayan filed a criminal defamation complaint under Section 499 of the IPC against Rathee for creating the video and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for retweeting it. While Kejriwal's proceedings concluded separately after he told the Supreme Court in February 2024 that sharing the clip was a mistake, the case against Rathee continued. Although the Saket Court first summoned Rathee on July 23, 2019, the trial stalled for over seven years because Rathee lived abroad and could not be served notice.

1. The Saket Court first summoned Rathee on July 23, 2019, to answer criminal defamation charges, but proceedings stalled for over seven years. Complainant counsel Samaksh Sharma submitted that because Rathee resides overseas, earlier notices could not be served.

2. After Rathee traveled to India for the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests in Delhi, the court on October 12, 2026, ordered fresh summons to his local residence in Sector 56, Gurugram. When a process server visited the Gurugram house and found it locked, Magistrate Rahul Jain escalated the matter by issuing bailable warrants on October 17.

3. Complainant Vikas Sanskrityayan maintains Rathee's May 2018 video leveled false bribery allegations to damage his reputation. Following co-accused Arvind Kejriwal's February 2024 apology to the Supreme Court for retweeting the video, Sanskrityayan has continued prosecuting Rathee as the primary creator.

1. The October 17 warrant could not be executed in Gurugram due to a clerical error in the court paperwork, which mistakenly listed an incorrect Austrian address from the case file instead of Rathee's Sector 56, Gurugram address. The October 31 order issuing fresh warrants was required simply to correct this address mix-up on the warrant.

2. During the October 31 hearing, complainant counsel Samaksh Sharma admitted that Rathee had already left India and returned overseas. Questioning the complainant's push for urgent coercive action after Rathee's departure, Magistrate Rahul Jain asked, "What is the logic of the hurry now?" before adjourning the case to November 23.

3. Days before the October 12 summons were ordered for his Gurugram residence, Rathee was detained amid the Delhi protest crackdown an action he called a "kidnapping" after his 22-hour ordeal. Moreover, the bailable warrants are strictly procedural steps to secure his appearance, and the 2018 defamation allegations remain unproven in court.