A Delhi court has issued fresh and dasti summons to digital creator Dhruv Rathee in connection with a long-standing criminal defamation case initiated in 2018 . The order, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Rahul Jain at the Saket Courts , seeks to address a procedural stalemate that has hampered the case for over eight years. The court’s intervention was prompted by the complainant’s recent application, which highlighted Rathee’s current presence in India and the necessity of ensuring formal service of notice to move the litigation toward a trial stage.

The magistrate recorded that while the criminal complaint was initially filed in 2018 and summons were first issued in July 2019 , the process of serving the accused had remained incomplete due to his primary residence being abroad. The order specifies that the complainant, Vikas Sankrityayan—also known as Vikas Pandey—may now accompany the court-appointed process server to the Gurugram residence where Rathee is reportedly staying. This directive for dasti service—a mechanism where the summons is handed directly to the party or their representative rather than relying solely on the court’s standard postal delivery—aims to prevent further delays that have stalled the proceedings since the case's inception.

Resolving Years of Procedural Delays

The legal challenge in serving notice to Rathee was grounded in his reported residency in Austria for the past seven years. During the hearing on October 12 , the complainant’s counsel, Advocate Samaksh Sharma , informed the court that Rathee had recently arrived in India to participate in protests organized by the Cockroach Janata Party in the national capital. Recognizing this as a window of opportunity to rectify the persistent service issues, the court granted the application for pre-ponement and issued fresh directions for service at an identified address in Sector 56, Gurugram.

The court observed, "From the available record, it is clear that the complainant has been trying to serve the accused no. 1 since last several years as the accused was initially summoned vide order dated 23.07.2019 ." By ordering the process to be issued on a daily basis and granting the complainant the liberty to assist the process server , the court has signaled a firm intention to advance the case beyond the procedural impasse . The summons mandates that Rathee must appear before the court on October 17, 2026 , either in person or through legal counsel.

Origin and Scope of the Defamation Dispute

The litigation centers on a video uploaded by Rathee to his digital platform in May 2018 , titled " BJP IT Cell Part 2." The complainant, an individual associated with the social media advocacy page 'I Support Narendra Modi,' alleges that the video contained defamatory assertions regarding his professional conduct and his relationship with the Bharatiya Janata Party 's information technology infrastructure. Specifically, the complaint claims the video falsely suggested that the complainant had offered a bribe of ₹50 lakh to an individual named Mahavir Prasad to suppress information regarding the circulation of misinformation.

These allegations remain unproven at this stage, as the court has not yet reached the substantive merits of the criminal defamation claim. The case has historically been complicated by its high-profile nature and the involvement of prominent political figures. Notably, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, had previously been named in the complaint for having retweeted the video in question. However, the legal proceedings against Kejriwal saw a significant development in February 2024 , when his counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi , acknowledged before the Supreme Court of India that the retweet was a mistake. While this admission led to a separation of proceedings concerning the former Chief Minister, the criminal complaint against Rathee has persisted as an independent matter of record.

Evolving Legal Landscape for Online Content

The case serves as a point of reflection for the legal community regarding the challenges of enforcing judicial processes in the era of borderless digital content. As creators often maintain transnational residences, the logistical hurdles in serving summons can effectively pause defamation litigation for years, testing the efficacy of traditional procedural mechanisms. By authorizing dasti service, the Saket Courts have underscored a preference for practical solutions that uphold the court's authority over the convenience of geographically dispersed litigants.

While the current order is strictly focused on procedural compliance, it brings a long-dormant complaint back into the active docket. The legal requirements for defamation under the law necessitate that the accused be formally served and given an opportunity to enter a plea or present a defense before any findings of fact can be made. The upcoming hearing on October 17 will be pivotal in determining whether the fresh efforts at service have successfully brought the accused within the court's jurisdiction . The magistrate is expected to review the process server ’s report to confirm that the summons has been duly executed. Should the service be verified as complete, the case will transition from the summoning phase to the stage of trial preparation, where the complainant will have the burden of substantiating his claims of defamation against the digital content creator. Until such time, the presumption of innocence remains, and the court maintains a neutral stance, focusing exclusively on the enforcement of its procedural directives to ensure the judicial process can move forward.