Delhi’s Saket Court has issued fresh bailable warrants against prominent YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. The warrants, issued on March 13, 2024, stem from his repeated failure to appear in a defamation case filed against him in 2018 by Vikas Pandey, a social media volunteer for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The case pertains to a video published by Rathee in 2018, which reportedly targeted the BJP IT cell and made allegations that Pandey claims were defamatory.

The defamation suit alleges that Rathee’s video, titled "BJP IT Cell Part 2," contained false and defamatory content against Pandey and the BJP's social media operations. Pandey, through his legal representation, has asserted that the video caused significant damage to his reputation and that of the party's IT cell. The legal action seeks redress under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 500 for defamation and Section 120B for criminal conspiracy.

The legal proceedings have seen a series of actions due to Rathee's non-appearance. Despite repeated summons, Rathee has not personally attended court hearings. His counsel has previously informed the court that Mr. Rathee resides in Germany, making his physical presence challenging. Attempts to serve notices to his German address have also been part of the ongoing legal process.

Key developments in the case include:

  • 2018: Vikas Pandey files a defamation case against Dhruv Rathee following the publication of the "BJP IT Cell Part 2" video.
  • 2019: The court initially issued non-bailable warrants against Rathee due to his failure to appear.
  • Subsequent Hearings: These non-bailable warrants were later converted to bailable warrants after his counsel assured the court of his future appearance and cooperation.
  • March 13, 2024: Fresh bailable warrants were issued by Metropolitan Magistrate Ujjwal Chopra, following Rathee's continued absence from court proceedings.

The court has reiterated the necessity of Rathee's appearance to proceed with the trial. The issuance of these warrants underscores the judicial system's requirement for all parties to a case, including the accused, to participate in court proceedings as mandated. Failure to do so can lead to further legal measures, such as these warrants, to ensure compliance.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for April 25, 2024. During this hearing, the court is expected to review the status of the warrants and determine the subsequent course of action in the ongoing defamation case. The outcome will depend on whether Dhruv Rathee appears before the court on the stipulated date or provides a valid legal explanation for his continued absence.