Judicial Magistrate Rahul Jain of the Saket courts ordered the warrants in proceedings initiated by Vikas Sankrityayan, also known as Vikas Pandey, over allegations arising from a video published in 2018. The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 31.
The process server informed the court that the summons could not be delivered at the address specified in an earlier order. The report of the locked premises prompted the magistrate to adopt a further measure to secure Rathee’s participation in the proceedings.
The court’s decision followed an October 12 order authorising fresh summons to be served at Rathee’s residence in Gurugram, Haryana. That order came after the complainant sought an early hearing and permission for direct service of the summons, citing prolonged difficulties in reaching the YouTuber.
Pandey’s lawyer, Samaksh Sharma, had told the court that attempts to serve Rathee had remained unsuccessful for several years because he ordinarily lived abroad. Counsel submitted that Rathee had travelled to India in connection with protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party, creating an opportunity to serve the pending court papers.
The magistrate had permitted Pandey to accompany the process server when the summons were delivered, an arrangement intended to facilitate service. Nevertheless, the subsequent visit did not result in delivery, and the court was informed of the unsuccessful attempt at Saturday’s hearing.
A bailable warrant is a judicial process intended to secure the appearance of a person before a court, while allowing release on the bail conditions attached to the warrant. Its issuance does not establish guilt or amount to a finding that the allegations in the complaint are true.
The detailed text of Saturday’s order was not immediately available. Consequently, the precise terms of the warrant, including any bond amount or directions concerning its execution, could not be independently established from the information disclosed about the hearing.
The case concerns a video titled BJP IT Cell Part 2, published by Rathee in May 2018. Pandey alleges that statements made in the video damaged his reputation. The disputed material concerned allegations about the Bharatiya Janata Party’s information technology operation and an alleged attempt to offer money in connection with criticism of Rathee.
Pandey, identified as associated with the BJP’s IT Cell, disputes the claims made about him. His complaint forms the basis of the criminal defamation proceedings. The allegations remain matters for judicial determination and should not be treated as established facts.
The video was also circulated through Rathee’s account on the social media platform then known as Twitter. Arvind Kejriwal, who was Delhi’s chief minister at the time, reposted the material, leading Pandey to initiate defamation proceedings against both men.
The present warrant concerns Rathee. The available account of Saturday’s proceedings does not establish any new judicial direction against Kejriwal, and the status of proceedings involving him should not be inferred from the order issued against the YouTuber.
Court proceedings in the complaint have been pending for years. The magistrate noted during the earlier hearing that Rathee had initially been summoned in July 2019. The fresh summons ordered this month were therefore another attempt to advance a case in which service of court papers had remained an obstacle.
Rathee’s overseas residence became relevant to the immediate procedural dispute because the complainant sought to take advantage of his presence in the Delhi region. The court was told of that presence when it considered the request to bring forward the hearing and authorise service by hand.
There was no verified statement from Rathee addressing Saturday’s warrant in the accounts of the hearing. Nor did the material available establish whether he had received personal notice of the October 12 summons before the process server’s unsuccessful visit.
The court has not, on the information available from this hearing, decided whether the disputed video contained defamatory statements or whether any defence advanced by Rathee succeeds.
The next listed hearing, on October 31, provides the court with an opportunity to review the execution of its order and the progress of the case. Saturday’s reported proceedings centred on service and attendance rather than an examination of evidence supporting the underlying defamation allegation.
