New Delhi, Sep 16 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in connection with an FIR over his alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard submissions on behalf of Bharti, who is seeking protection from arrest in the case registered under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
During the hearing, Justice Banerjee remarked that Bharti ought to have been “circumspect” while making the alleged comments and questioned the Delhi Police on why no notice had been issued to the accused. “You don’t require custodial interrogation?” the High Court asked.
In response, Delhi Police’s counsel submitted that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti’s address only two days ago and was therefore unable to issue him notice earlier.
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court also observed that the words allegedly used by Bharti were offensive and objected to the manner in which a transcript containing the alleged remarks was placed on record. “You (Bharti’s lawyer) cannot hand over the words used by him to a court of law. I will issue contempt notice to you. Phraseology used is not offensive, according to you? Please be aware of what you are doing,” Justice Banerjee remarked.
Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted as the alleged remarks were not made with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad on account of his caste identity. “What I am trying to show is that an abusive statement by itself does not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act. There are Supreme Court judgments on this,” Dehadrai submitted. He contended that Bharti’s remarks were made in the context of comments allegedly made against his sister on social media and that his client had not targeted Azad because of his caste.
“My sister was abused on a social media feed; I responded to that. Some people may not like it, but my intention was not to malign…I have not even named Mr Azad’s caste,” he argued. The counsel further submitted that the alleged caste reference, by itself, would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless accompanied by the requisite intention to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste.
However, the Delhi High Court said that at the present stage, it was only required to examine whether a prima facie case was made out. “I have read your application. Today, a simpliciter notice is sufficient. For you to ask for protection, I don’t think it can be granted,” Justice Banerjee orally remarked.
On the other hand, Delhi Police counsel submitted that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste and had been made publicly on social media. “All these words have been said on social media. Third thing is that he doesn’t belong to the same caste. These three things are there to attract the SC/ST Act,” the counsel submitted, opposing the anticipatory bail plea.
Counsel appearing for the complainant also opposed the plea, arguing that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste and that the alleged remarks disclosed a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act. The complainant’s counsel further submitted that around 23,000 people had access to the social-media content and that caste references were repeatedly made, thereby satisfying the requirement of the remarks being made in a place within public view. The counsel also argued that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the statute was made out.
In his rebuttal submissions, Dehadrai submitted that Section 18 would not operate as a bar if the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act. He reiterated that Bharti’s remarks had been made following alleged abuse directed at his sister on social media and that there was no intention to insult or humiliate Azad on the ground of his caste.
The case arises out of FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Bharti had earlier approached the Patiala House Courts seeking anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed his plea on September 7, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted.
The trial court had observed that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which concerns intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate.
It had further observed that the alleged remarks contained “an express, repeated invocation of caste names” and involved references to caste hierarchy and marriageability. The trial court had clarified that its observations were confined to the tentative examination of the applicability of the statutory bar at the pre-arrest stage and did not amount to a finding on Bharti’s guilt or innocence.
The Delhi High Court reserved its decision after hearing the submissions from Bharti, the Delhi Police and the complainant.
–IANS
pds/uk