YouTuber Dhruv Rathee has accused the authorities of unlawfully taking him into custody and criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Delhi Police following his release after nearly 24 hours in detention. In a video posted on social media on Sunday, October 11, Rathee described the episode as a “kidnapping” and alleged that officials took him from his home without showing a warrant or informing him where he was being taken.
Rathee’s detention came amid preparations for a protest by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls.
The YouTuber alleged that a large group of people in civilian clothes entered his home early on Saturday, pushed his mother aside and took him away. He also claimed that his phone and his parents’ phones were taken, and that he was denied access to a lawyer and the ability to contact others.
View tweet
What did Dhruv Rathee say after his release?
In a post accompanying his video, Dhruv Rathee wrote that he had not been arrested or detained but had been “KIDNAPPED”. He said the people who arrived at his home were not in police uniform and alleged that no warrant was shown to him.
Dhruv Rathee recounted being taken from his bedroom and transported between police stations. He said he remained in custody for approximately 20 to 23 hours and was not initially given clear information about his legal status.
He also rejected online claims suggesting that his citizenship had prompted the action, holding up his passport in the video and asserting that he was an Indian citizen.
Rathee said the episode raised broader questions about civil liberties, due process and the treatment of people who criticise the government. He directly criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi and described the situation as evidence of growing authoritarianism. These characterisations reflect Rathee’s stated political views and allegations.
Why was Rathee taken into custody?
Dhruv Rathee’s detention occurred during a security crackdown ahead of the CJP’s planned demonstration in central Delhi. The movement had called for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Delhi Police had imposed restrictions around the proposed demonstration and detained multiple people as authorities sought to prevent a large gathering. CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were also taken into custody after arriving in Delhi on Saturday.
The protest concerns the deletion and verification of voter names. Critics of the electoral-roll revision have questioned the process and raised concerns about eligible voters being excluded, while the Election Commission’s exercise is part of the wider dispute over electoral-roll accuracy.
The available reporting establishes the context of Rathee’s detention but does not, by itself, settle the legal justification for the action against him.
Rathee criticises Prime Minister Modi and Delhi Police
In his video, Dhruv Rathee urged Prime Minister Modi to reflect on the consequences of concentrating power and limiting dissent. He invoked historical examples of authoritarian leaders and argued that the incident should concern people beyond his own political supporters.
Dhruv Rathee also thanked climate activist Sonam Wangchuk for expressing support for him and the detained CJP leaders.
His remarks have placed the episode at the centre of a wider debate over policing, freedom of expression and the right to protest. The allegations are likely to prompt further questions about whether the authorities followed the required legal procedures.
ALSO READ: CJP Parliament March: Delhi Police Warns Protesters, Invokes Section 163
What remains unclear about the detention?
Important details remain to be established, including the precise legal grounds cited for taking Rathee into custody, the documentation used by the authorities and the circumstances under which he was released.
Rathee’s account provides his version of events, but an independent assessment would require the relevant police records, official explanations and any available court documents.
The distinction between an arrest, preventive detention and an unlawful abduction is legally significant. Rathee’s use of the word “kidnapped” expresses his allegation and should not be treated as a judicial finding.
Political and civil-liberties debate intensifies
The incident comes amid heightened tensions surrounding the CJP’s protest and the broader controversy over electoral-roll revision. It has intensified debate about the balance between public-order restrictions and citizens’ rights to dissent and demonstrate.
The coming days may bring further statements from Rathee, CJP representatives, police officials and other political figures. Any official explanation of the detention, including its legal basis, will be central to assessing the competing accounts.
For now, Rathee has publicly accused the authorities of acting unlawfully, while the full circumstances of his detention require further official clarification and independent verification.
