A Delhi court has issued a bailable warrant against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in an eight-year-old criminal defamation case filed by Vikas Pandey, after being informed that a fresh summons issued could not be served as the premises of his residence was found locked.
The Saket Courts passed the order on Saturday after being apprised that the service of summons on Rathee remained incomplete.
The court has now listed the matter for further hearing on October 31. In an order passed earlier this month, the court had permitted fresh summons to be served on Rathee through dasti service, allowing the complainant to accompany the process server to facilitate service.
Get updated faster and for FREE: Download the Gulf News app now - simply click here.
Despite the steps taken, the court was informed that the notice could not be served as the premises of Rathee's house was locked, leading to the issuance of the bailable warrant.
The case pertains to a video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part 2', which allegedly defamed Pandey.
The video was also retweeted by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor Arvind Kejriwal in 2018, who later acknowledged before the Supreme Court that he had made a mistake by retweeting it.
Pandey, the founder of the social media page 'I Support Narendra Modi', had claimed that the retweet had tarnished his reputation.
The proceedings against Rathee had remained pending amid repeated difficulties in serving summons on him since 2019, with the complainant claiming that his continued absence from India had delayed the case.
Rathee ordinarily resides in Austria.
The matter had also reached the Supreme Court in connection with Kejriwal's challenge to the criminal defamation proceedings arising from the retweet.
In February 2024, Kejriwal told the apex court that he had made a mistake by sharing the video. A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, who later became Chief Justice of India (CJI) and has since retired, and Dipankar Datta had stayed the trial court proceedings against Kejriwal while hearing his plea challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to quash the summons issued against him.
The Delhi High Court had earlier upheld the summoning order, observing that retweeting allegedly defamatory content could attract prosecution under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).