Delhi Court Dismisses YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s Anticipatory Bail Plea in Caste Remarks Case

Delhi court rejects Ajeet Bharti’s pre-arrest bail

A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of YouTuber and social media commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case concerning alleged casteist and derogatory remarks.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts rejected Bharti’s plea in an order passed on September 7. The detailed order, made available on September 9, explains why the court found that the allegations prima facie attracted provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

What did the court say?

The court focused on remarks Bharti allegedly made while discussing Nagina MP and Azad Samaj Party leader Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community.

According to the court's observations, Bharti's comments did more than make a general reference to caste. The judge said they appeared to invoke a caste hierarchy, caste-based notions of purity and an assumed superiority of upper castes over lower castes in matters of marriage and lineage.

The court particularly considered Bharti's alleged assertion that Azad would have to make himself “worthy” of marrying an upper-caste woman. The judge observed that the statement constituted a specific reference to caste and was prima facie humiliating.

On that basis, the court found that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie disclosed.

Why was the anticipatory bail plea rejected?

The court held that the prima facie applicability of the SC/ST Act triggered the statutory restriction under Section 18, which generally bars anticipatory bail where the relevant offences under the Act are made out at the threshold.

The judge noted that if the SC/ST Act provisions had not been involved, the court might have considered granting Bharti pre-arrest protection. The decision, however, was ultimately governed by the statutory bar.

Importantly, the court also clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application. The order does not amount to a final finding of guilt against Bharti.

What is the case against Ajeet Bharti?

An FIR was registered at Delhi's North Avenue Police Station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).

The case relates to Bharti's YouTube programme titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti”, which was uploaded in August. The complaint alleged that the video contained caste-based and abusive remarks concerning Azad and references to BR Ambedkar, besides other objectionable comments.

The FIR invokes provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Bharti's defence

During the bail proceedings, Bharti's lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that his client had not used a casteist slur and that the remarks were made in response to what he described as serious provocation involving a family member.

The defence maintained that Bharti's comments were directed at the person who allegedly made the offensive remark and did not amount to an attack on an entire caste or community. It also argued that the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie attracted.

Delhi Police had also told the court that the mere registration of an FIR did not mean Bharti would necessarily be arrested.

Case now moves forward

With the anticipatory bail plea rejected, Bharti does not have the protection from arrest that he had sought through the application. The criminal case itself, however, remains pending, and the court's observations at the bail stage are not a final determination of the allegations.

The ruling has also put the focus on the legal threshold for invoking the SC/ST Act when allegedly caste-based remarks are made in a public digital forum.