- Dhruv Rathee faces new summons in 2018 defamation case.
- This stems from Rathee’s bribery allegations against complainant.
- New legal challenge targets Rathee’s controversial religious video.
- Petitioners seek content restriction citing video’s deity claims.
YouTuber Dhruv Rathee is facing fresh legal developments in two separate cases in Delhi. A Saket court has ordered a fresh summons in a defamation case dating back to 2018, while a separate legal challenge has been initiated over a video allegedly making claims about Lord Ram and Goddess Sita’s food and drink during their exile.
In the older case, the court has directed that the summons be served at Rathee’s Gurugram address after repeated attempts to reach him reportedly failed. The second matter concerns a video titled “Can Hindus Eat BEEF?” and seeks restrictions on the publication of similar content.
Fresh Summons Ordered
Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket court passed the order on October 12 while hearing an application filed by complainant Vikas Sankrityayan, popularly known as Vikas Pandey. Pandey had requested an early hearing and permission to accompany the process server to ensure delivery of the summons, news agency ANI reported.
According to PTI, the magistrate noted that Rathee had initially been summoned in July 2019. The court observed, “From the available record, it is clear that the complainant has been trying to serve the accused no. 1 (Rathee) since the last several years…”
The court directed that fresh summons be issued at the Gurugram address provided by the complainant. It also permitted Pandey to accompany the process server when the notice is delivered.
The complainant has been directed to deposit the prescribed process fee within two days. The matter is scheduled for further proceedings on October 17, 2026.
ALSO READ: Ankita Bhandari’s Parents Detained At India Gate Over Dushyant Gautam’s Governor Appointment
What Is The 2018 Case?
The defamation proceedings relate to a video published on Rathee’s YouTube channel, @dhruvrathee, in May 2018. Pandey, an entrepreneur and social media activist associated with the BJP IT Cell, initiated the case over allegations made in the video.
Rathee had alleged that members of the BJP’s IT Cell attempted to bribe Pandey to discredit him. Pandey subsequently approached the court, alleging that the claims made against him were defamatory.
Speaking about the proceedings, Pandey said Rathee had published around three videos alleging that he offered ₹50 lakh to someone to circulate fake news against the YouTuber. He also alleged that Arvind Kejriwal amplified the allegations through social media posts.
Pandey said he filed cases against both Kejriwal and Rathee, adding that Kejriwal had apologised while Rathee had not appeared before the court.
“The court summons has been pasted outside Dhruv Rathee’s home because he was not coming out,” Pandey said, while describing the latest developments in the case.
Separate Challenge Over Ram-Sita Video
In a separate development, Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Amita Sachdeva and other petitioners approached the Delhi High Court over Rathee’s video titled “Can Hindus Eat BEEF?”
The petitioners sought an interim restraint preventing Rathee from creating, uploading or publishing similar content. Sachdeva alleged that the video contained claims that Lord Ram and Goddess Sita consumed meat and alcohol during their exile.
According to Sachdeva, the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court over the video, following which the court directed the Union government to have it removed.
Video Removal Dispute
Sachdeva said the Government of India directed YouTube to take down the video on July 15, 2026. The petition was subsequently disposed of after the removal direction was issued.
However, she alleged that a three-minute excerpt from the original 21-minute video was later extracted and uploaded again by another person.
The latest legal challenge seeks restrictions on similar content. The two matters involve separate proceedings: the older defamation case concerns allegations made in 2018, while the newer dispute relates to the video about religious beliefs and the subsequent alleged re-upload of a portion of it.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
