Indian YouTuber Dhruv Rathee Claims 24-Hour Abduction Ahead of Delhi Protests

Indian YouTuber Dhruv Rathee alleges he was abducted from his home and held for nearly 24 hours without a lawyer, days after demanding the election chief resign. The incident occurred on Friday night in Delhi, according to a video Rathee posted on his channel, in which he claims unknown men entered his residence, took him to an undisclosed location, and held him for almost a full day. He was released only after police arrived and he was allowed to leave.

Rathee, a 31‑year‑old political commentator known for his critical videos on Indian politics, has built a following of over 8 million subscribers. His latest video criticised the Election Commission of India for alleged irregularities in the 2024 elections and called for the resignation of its chief, a move that drew sharp backlash from government officials. The alleged abduction comes amid a tense political climate, with the government facing growing criticism over its handling of dissent and freedom of expression. The incident is being viewed by many as a warning to outspoken critics.

The YouTuber’s claims have sparked a flurry of reactions online. Supporters on social media called for an independent investigation and accused the police of complicity. The government has not yet commented on the allegations, but the Election Commission said it would cooperate with any inquiry. The Delhi Police have stated they are “looking into the matter” and that a “formal complaint has been filed.” The video also coincided with the announcement that thousands of protesters will march to the Supreme Court on Monday to demand the resignation of the Election Commission chief and to protest the perceived erosion of democratic norms.

If the police confirm the abduction, it could lead to a high‑profile legal case and potentially bring international attention to India’s record on civil liberties. The protests are expected to draw large crowds, and the Supreme Court may be forced to address the allegations against the election chief and the broader issue of state‑sponsored intimidation. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how dissent is treated in India and shape the political discourse in the run‑up to the next general election.