YouTuber Dhruv Rathee is facing two separate legal proceedings in Delhi. A fresh defamation suit has been filed over a video concerning Lord Ram and Goddess Sita, while a court has issued fresh summons in a criminal defamation case dating back to 2018.
Fresh Defamation Suit Over Ram-Sita Video
A new defamation suit has been filed against Rathee at Delhi’s Saket District Court over a video titled “Can Hindus Eat BEEF?” The petitioners allege that the video contained claims that Lord Ram and Goddess Sita consumed meat and alcohol during their exile.
The suit reportedly seeks a declaration, an injunction and damages. The hearing has been scheduled for November 5, 2026. These are allegations raised in the case and have not been established as findings of the court.
Dispute Over Video Removal
According to the petitioners’ counsel, the original video was taken down after the government directed YouTube to remove it on July 15, 2026. The petitioners allege that an excerpt was subsequently uploaded again by another person, prompting fresh legal action.
Fresh Summons in 2018 Criminal Defamation Case
Separately, the Saket court has issued fresh summons to Rathee in a criminal defamation case filed by Vikas Pandey over a video titled “BJP IT Cell Part II.”
The court passed the order on October 12, noting that previous attempts to serve Rathee with summons had been unsuccessful. It directed that fresh summons be served at his Gurugram address. The next hearing is scheduled for October 17, 2026.
What Is the 2018 Case About?
The older case concerns a video published by Rathee in May 2018. In it, Rathee allegedly claimed that members of the BJP IT Cell had attempted to bribe Pandey to discredit him.
Pandey subsequently filed a defamation complaint, alleging that the claims harmed his reputation. The issuance of summons does not establish that the allegations were defamatory.
Two Separate Legal Battles
The two proceedings concern different videos and distinct legal complaints. One focuses on alleged remarks about Hindu deities, while the other relates to claims made in a video about the BJP IT Cell in 2018.
Both matters remain subject to the legal process, and the allegations must be distinguished from any findings the courts may eventually make.