A Delhi court has questioned the nature of the relief that can be granted in a civil defamation suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee over a video allegedly insulting Hindu deities, asking how a court could direct an individual to stop expressing himself.
District Judge Mohinder Virat was hearing a suit filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, who has sought declaratory and monetary relief over the alleged injury to her religious sentiments.
During the hearing, the Court sought clarification on the precise declaration sought by the plaintiff and the legal basis for claiming damages. It questioned whether the allegations could be addressed through a civil action concerning the plaintiff’s legal character and rights.
Representing Sachdeva, her counsel argued that religious identity forms part of an individual’s legal character and is capable of protection under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Drawing a comparison with professional reputation, counsel submitted that just as damage to a person’s professional standing could give rise to legal remedies, an alleged attack on religious identity could also warrant judicial intervention.
The plaintiff’s counsel further contended that conduct attracting criminal liability could, in appropriate circumstances, also constitute a civil wrong. Reference was made to Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which criminalises deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs.
Counsel maintained that the suit was intended to protect the plaintiff’s own religious identity and legal rights, rather than merely seeking to vindicate the sentiments of the wider community. The lawyer urged the Court to issue summons to the defendants and allow them an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
To illustrate the argument, counsel referred to the legal recognition of a Hindu deity as a juristic person capable of holding property, submitting that an individual could approach a court to seek redress for an alleged injury involving a deity’s religious dignity.
The Court also examined the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which enables a person claiming entitlement to a legal character or a right concerning property to seek a declaration against someone denying, or interested in denying, that entitlement. The provision places limits on declaratory relief where a plaintiff could seek further relief but omits to do so.
The proceedings raise questions about whether alleged injury to religious sentiments can be framed as an infringement of an individual’s legally recognised character or rights, and what remedies a civil court may grant in such circumstances.
The Court has not yet ruled on the maintainability or merits of the suit.
Sachdeva had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking action over Rathee’s video concerning Hindu deities. On July 3, 2026, the High Court directed the Centre’s Grievance Appellate Committee to decide her appeal seeking removal of the video, preferably within 15 days, while leaving the parties’ rights and contentions open.
In a subsequent order dated August 11, 2026, the High Court recorded that YouTube had restricted access to the video in India. It also permitted Sachdeva to provide links to re-uploaded versions to the platform for examination in accordance with the committee’s order and the law.
The present civil proceedings concern the separate question of whether declaratory or monetary relief can be granted for the alleged defamation of religious sentiments. The matter is listed for further hearing on November 5, 2026.
The post Delhi court questions scope of civil relief in defamation suit against Dhruv Rathee over alleged insult to Hindu deities appeared first on India Legal.